Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Trump and Women

  1. #1

    Default Trump and Women

    --I have always admired the "New York Times".
    When I lived in The City, I'd buy a copy of it nearly every day-- and I'd always get the Sunday Times, despite the elevated cost. "All The News That's Fit to Print" was their motto, and I believed that and still do. After I moved to Florida, in the early '70s I could not find an outlet for the Times in the small town I lived in, so New York's "Gray Lady" became lost to me, and until the internet came along, reading the Times was just one of those things that I used to do. These days, I am back to reading it daily and I still try to admire the paper, despite its' liberal editorial bias.

    --I always liked Donald Trump.
    We are both about the same age, both of us went to private military schools, both came from wealthy, successful New York families. He and I both grew to manhood in the City--and later, Florida-- and we each have an abiding love for architecture, New York and attractive, intelligent women. Like him, I grew up in a time of transition, an era when sexual politics was in flux as the culture moved from male dominance to modern feminism. Like The Donald, I had a lot of relationships, mostly with girls who were very attractive, who were intelligent and who had strong opinions of their own self-worth. I had a rather strong ego back then, and sought out partners who thought the same about themselves.

    Most of my relationships with the women I knew were happy and productive, resulting in some very memorable moments that I have always had fond recollection of, and most of my ex-girlfriends remained friends even after our breakups. A couple of them were partners in some business ventures, a few were pure eye candy, but they were friends and lovers and were held in high esteem and respected by me for the people that they were.
    There were a few relationships that ended badly, but really that is par for the course when one is immersed in the world of dating. I often speculate what those people must have said about our relations after we split. i'm sure some of them have nothing good to say about our joint experiences. Ah, well...

    Ultimately, in my early 30's, I met the woman of my dreams and we married and began a family. After 17 years--mostly pleasant and productive-- my wife and I divorced. Unlike Trump, I never remarried.

    The reason that I've recounted all that is because of what I read in Sunday's Times, in a front page article that tried, in its' weak, muckraking style, to marginalize Trump's candidacy by painting a misleading portrait of him using the anti-feminist brush and the palette of yellow journalism. They played the "woman's card" and their reporters have lost the hand.
    How THEY have sunk, in my humble estimate, to the bottom of the journalistic sea with this article is a story worthy of some other paper's front page expose'.

    The "Gray Lady", has finally reverted to a tabloid journalism worthy of "The Tattler" or "The National Enquirer" ( or "The Daily News"), by attempting to show Trump as a serial monogamist, a crude brute who defamed women, objectified them and in general lived the life of a chauvinist. The paper went WAY off the mark here. They dove backwards twenty, thirty years and somehow uncovered a few of Trump's ex-girlfriends and business associates, women who interacted with him in relationships, casual encounters and business dealings, and they managed to find, in a sea of old relationships, a few fish who washed up on the shores of contention.

    --Pretty girls in beauty pagents who felt the leering eye of a man who was tasked with judging them, they who actually had the duty to BE pretty...
    --Guests at his mansion who were offered swimsuits so they could use the pool.
    --Business contacts who clashed with him over ideas and responsibilities.
    --Feminists who have an anti-male axe to grind.
    --Stories about admiring women who were obviously "hot', an occasion that every heterosexual male runs into from time to time. ( My own daughter, a few years older than Ivanka Trump, could be described as 'hot". She was, and is, very attractive, a "9" out of "10).
    --Rosie O'Donnell.

    The article makes the Times appear foolish and petty, even as it exposes it's uber-liberal bias.
    Despite their best efforts to defame him, the article came off as a puff piece, one that actually made Trump look good when it comes to his prior relationships with women. As I read it, I saw many parallels to my early relationships. I also saw, in many of the interviews and quotes, how the paper tried to stir up some mud but failed. Many of the women responded to the paper's interviewers by praising Trump, by showing gratitude towards him for giving them opportunity to show their strengths, by promoting their cause, challenging their intelligence, flattering their ego.
    (Today, one of them said that the paper's quotes and contentions about her experiences were outright lies and dis- and mis-information).

    In short, he seems to be shown as just a regular guy, a bit forward and somewhat outspoken, but confident and respectful around the women he interacted with. He IS and has been a wealthy and powerful man, endowed with an inflated ego and blessed with a self-made confidence; he's known thousands of people and he probably treats ALL of them, men and women alike, with an equal democratic impertinence. I know the character; I've lived it.

    If you haven't yet, you should find and read the article. It really does little to harm Trump's image, but it does a magnitude of harm to the veracity of "The New York Times". THAT crappy article was not worth the effort, definitely NOT "fit to print" .

    As I said, about two thousand words ago, I like Donald Trump.
    But, alas, I no longer admire the Times.
    Last edited by Hof; June 11th, 2016 at 10:16 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    Despite their best efforts to defame him,...
    They don't have to make any efforts to do that, he does a good enough job all on his on.

  3. #3

    Default

    Trump 'a regular guy'? I think not. A regular nut-case maybe.

  4. #4
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Irrespective of one's opinion of the article or the New York Times itself -- or for that matter, Trump himself --- Trump is categorically NOT the right person to be the POTUS. That is NOT to say Hilary is any better, though. It's freakin' scary that these are the choices. But then again, this is the country that had a B-grade actor running the place. SNAFU?

  5. #5

    Default

    when given the choice- the lessor of two evils....
    HILLERY (although not ideal, at least she has some sort of realistic/sane polices)!
    Drumpf is only in it for himself.

  6. #6

    Default

    An old political cliche'--"America gets the president that it deserves, at the time it deserves him" can no longer be viable. We deserved Teddy & F. D. Roosevelt, Lincoln, JFK, Grant--even LBJ. They introduced themselves, through the wisdom of the voter, into the flow of History and seemed to be the exact person the country needed at their particular time. They guided the Ship of State through angry, uncharted waters, saw our Nation through the ugly wars, the social changes, the economic directions that have led us to where we are today.
    Who really remembers who they ran against to earn the voter's approval? Who remembers how they were embraced by the voter of their time, how they impacted the life of our young country? Still, they succeeded in guiding and strengthing, and won the love and respect of their fellow Americans.

    How is it, that in recent election contests, we have been given a peanut farmer who could not govern, that grade- B actor you mentioned, a naif community organizer who dictated rather than negotiated, a President who depended on his Vice-President for direction and policy? Did we really deserve those guys? What have we done, collectively, in the last few generations, to have brought that kind of political punishment down upon us?

    And why now, after 2 Centuries ( plus) of remarkable personalities and monumental leaders, are we stuck with choosing among divisive figures on the opposing, outlier edges of conservatism and liberalism? How did THIS icy polarization come to pass?

    --Hillary is scary, an ambitious, corrupted Wicked Witch persona who lies, manipulates and promises to continue a failed philosophy of governance through the phony adherence to liberalism and Political Correctness. If you read between the lines she shouts at us, you see and hear a plan to punish America, like Obama's been practicing for seven years.

    --Bernie is a pie-in-the-sky proto-Commie, one who would steer the Ship of State onto the rocky shore of Socialism. He wants to drain America' bilges of it's capitalist blood, another punishment. His path seems cloaked in the rubric of free things for everybody--except the wealthy. He would lead us into previously charted waters, the iceberg-filled kind that led Russia and 1970's Great Britain to a Titanic-like disaster.

    --And Donald, one of the most entertaining yet polarizing figures ever to seek The Office, is a non-politico, a ball of confusion, a mouthpiece for the anger and frustration of the voter. He won't punish. He will make his presidency up, day-to-day; he may honestly TRY to guide us into the future, but he will fumble it. He is powered by ego. He has no charts, no sails, no motors to move The Ship through the surf and into the deep water.

    We've gone off the course, strayed from the channel, lost our way. We are not getting Presidents we deserve anymore. We are getting social experimenters, pretend captains, masters of the soundbite, job-seekers of little substance. Where are the Leaders?

    What do we deserve now? Why do we deserve THIS current steaming pile of poor choice?

    "Oh, Captain, My Captain, our fearful trip is done..."
    Last edited by Hof; May 22nd, 2016 at 01:15 PM.

  7. #7
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hof View Post
    The article makes the Times appear foolish and petty, even as it exposes it's uber-liberal bias.
    Despite their best efforts to defame him, the article came off as a puff piece
    You are correct in your assessment. However, the Times has nothing on the Washington Post. Believe or not they are an order of magnitude more egregious in their smear campaign and singular mission to stop Trump in any way they can. For months they've had a constant parade of anti-Trump stories and opinion pieces. Everything and anything you can imagine has been thrown at him.

    Liberal leaning media really need to stop this, it's driving a lot of people to Trump. They would be much better served to address the concerns of his voter base, which are completely legitimate and are constantly being belittled on a daily basis

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scumonkey View Post
    when given the choice- the lessor of two evils....
    HILLERY (although not ideal, at least she has some sort of realistic/sane polices)!
    Drumpf is only in it for himself.
    Hillary has few sane ideas.
    She is espousing few fresh ideas, and is definitely NOT ideal, not in any sense of the word.
    The realism you referred to is the realism of her lies and obfuscation, the altered reality of someone deluded by her own arrogance.

    What she is proposing as her platform is a continuation of Obama's ideas for ruling and controlling and changing our culture. She'll couple his over the top liberalism with her sneaky ineptitude and will totally drive the joy of being American from our system. Clinton will continue to deny, as the Boss has told her to do, that Radical Islam is out to kill us.
    ( She won't, and hasn't ever said those words, preferring the comforting denial of Political Correctness.).
    She'll corrupt the Second Amendment and won't do a thing about illegal "immigrants".

    She'll tax the successful, ignore Israel, put the coal miners out of work, drive even more manufacturing jobs offshore and jam the failing Obamacare scheme down everybody's throats even as she supports Obama's lousy nuclear bomb deal that has given the mullahs so much joy.
    She'll smother us all in manufactured Liberal Guilt and create a Supreme Court that will support even more liberal social experimentation.
    Does anybody think that she can gain the cooperation of Congress, even if it becomes minority Republican ??
    Does anybody think that she will drive ISIS back into the toilet that they emerged from???

    She crows loudly about working for women, slyly pulling THAT card from up her sleeve as she panders for the female vote, but what has she actually done for women, what is she really going to do for women? (...And doesn't that both imply AND infer that she is working AGAINST men--and all Republicans-- as she shouts about the imaginary "War against Women"?).
    She condemns the excesses of Wall St and talks about how she's going to punish them, even as she gives secretive speeches to those same Wall Street institutions and then happily cashes their six-figure checks.

    She lies to the families of dead American diplomats and soldiers, shares our National Secrets with anyone who wants to hack into her private computers, sneers at her political opponents with haughty hubris and, as our Secretary of State, sold government favor to anyone who made substantial contribution to the Bill and Hillary Fund.

    When she and Bill were finished with the Presidency, she says, they were stone broke, didn't even own a car--yet months later they bought a $2 million Rock Creek mansion, and a year after that got a nice $2 million dollar place in Chappaqua. Since, she hasn't needed a car. The limo is always awaiting her.

    Bill got a nice suite of offices in Harlem for the Foundation, and the both of them started getting PAID hundreds of dollars per word to talk to the wealthy and influential. Man, did they get rich quick.
    How did they manage all that?

    She is dishonest, untrustworthy inept and sneaky, a far cry from anybody's definition of leadership.
    It is SHE who is "only in it for herself", she who is the hypocrite, she who is the Evil.
    There is no lesser evil. Neither of the surviving candidates come close.

    And some of us think she should be our President, our Leader, our Commander-in-Chief?

    Really???
    Last edited by Hof; May 23rd, 2016 at 11:33 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Oh brother, you sound just like another one of those brainwashed Donald the Flip flopping, Liar in Chief, Drumph supporters...
    if so,that means there's no rational correspondence with you.

  10. #10

    Default

    Trump is no prize, but unless you are completely seduced by Clinton's numerous political charms, he's all that's out there now.

    My opposition to Clinton didn't come from Trump washing anything.
    I didn't like or trust her in '08 for many of the same reasons as today.
    I was actually glad when the Democrat bosses stampeded over her to put Obama in office, back then.
    Since Bernie doesn't stand a chance, Trump is all we've got.

    I did not write all the above to enhance Trump, and if rational correspondence means some endless compare and contrast exercise, a Trump V. Hillary cage match, count me out.
    She simply causes me to fear for our nation's future if she grabs the Power.

    And given the lousy choice that has fallen into our lap in this election cycle, I wouldn't be comforted by his Presidency either.
    At least he's not Clinton.

  11. #11
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hof View Post
    What have we done, collectively, in the last few generations, to have brought that kind of political punishment down upon us?
    ^ Not voting. Especially young voters - egregiously underestimated and dismissed by politicians. Like, you know, the future generation(s). At least the voting age was eventually reduced from 21 to 18, but I firmly believe that if a person is 16/17 years of age (no younger), is working and paying income tax, he/she should be able to vote. Expecting to be flamed, but voting should also be compulsory imho.

    --And Donald, one of the most entertaining yet polarizing figures ever to seek The Office, is a non-politico, a ball of confusion, a mouthpiece for the anger and frustration of the voter. He won't punish. He will make his presidency up, day-to-day; he may honestly TRY to guide us into the future, but he will fumble it. He is powered by ego. He has no charts, no sails, no motors to move The Ship through the surf and into the deep water.
    Yeah, except for the "entertaining" bit. The only thing going for him is that he hasn't (yet) acquired any skilled political pretence. What you see and hear is what you get. The downside of that (amongst other things) is being precisely that "mouthpiece for the anger and frustration of the voter". Inciting (even more) ignorance and misplaced/misdirected outrage with no substance may hold some appeal for his supporters short-term, but not for long. That scenario (read Pauline Hanson and the One Nation <--- yeah, right! party) led to a fairly quick fizzle-out here in Oz. It's nevertheless scary that some people can so easily coax the malcontents out of the woodwork. There'd be nary a peep out of them otherwise (which, minus the ignorance, is half the problem).

  12. #12
    NYC Aficionado from Oz Merry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,476

    Default

    Clinton is a slimeball...err...slimeboob (?)...

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merry View Post
    slimeboob
    This used to be a well-used site for discussion of development in NYC.

    It has devolved to having two basic functions:

    1. Facilitating amateur sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton
    2. Tracking construction in Harrison, NJ

  14. #14

    Default

    Like I suspected... no rational correspondence here at all.
    Not even a speck of reality (except for comment by EM).

  15. #15

    Default

    East M.--

    This site is much more than a developer's notebook. Skyscraperpage or Curbed do the job much better. Go there.

    WNY's devolution is a mystery. As a Senior Member, a New Yorker who has been here since the beginning, I have found it to be a valuable resource, currently being weakened by the absence of the intellectual elite that once populated its' boards, but certainly having much more than two basic functions. Maybe it has run out of subject matter. It certainly has acquired a lot of indifference.

    And, since Harrison, NJ completely depends on New York City (or Newark) for jobs, commuters and actual sexists, tracking construction there seems to be the ONLY thing that will bring attention to the town. I haven't read much about the place here. Maybe I'll start.

    BTW, the only way to become a seasoned sexist and facilitate successful attacks on Hillary Clinton is to start as an amateur.
    "Slimeball/Slimeboob" is a good start. It's a pun, it's sarcastic, it references BOTH Clintons at once ( Making it "bi-sexist"? Trans-sexist?). It has created a brand new word, one I've never actually seen in print, it's semi-funny and indirectly references genuine New York politico-citizens (...one an actual slimeball) and it is innocent Oz commentary from another Forum regular.
    --Now stop hijacking my posts with your inanity and go away. Go back to the Harrison developer's board.

    Start your own website about Portland or Presque Isle or Harrison, NJ. I'm sure you could fill at least a dozen pages about the beauty and excitement of a place where nobody wants to live.

    As I mentioned in the OTHER posts you have fumbled your way into, GO AWAY.
    Last edited by Hof; May 31st, 2016 at 03:12 PM.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software