Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

They're the ones bringing sex into it

Media claim Trump made ‘sexually suggestive’ tweet about Kirsten Gillibrand; he didn’t


By —— Bio and Archives--December 12, 2017

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

Media claim Trump made 'sexually suggestive' tweet about Kirsten Gillibrand

In case you hadn’t heard or don’t care, U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) yesterday called on President Trump to resign because a cavalcade of women has accused him of various baddities of a sexual nature. President Trump is not going to resign.

He is also, in classic Trump fashion, not going to take such a comment without responding. Anyone should have known that would happen, but it’s the way the media are characterizing the tweet that’s really worth nothing. According to them, Trump’s tweet about Gillibrand was sexually suggestive. If you can find a reference to anything sexual in the tweet, show me:

The Washington Post, among others, went to work quickly:

President Trump attacked Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in a sexually suggestive tweet Tuesday morning that implied Gillibrand would do just about anything for money, prompting a swift and immediate backlash.

Except that there wasn’t the slightest reference to anything sexual in the tweet.

Now I know what you’re going to say: By “do anything for them,” you think Trump was implying that Gillibrand would perform sexual favors for him to get this money. The problem with that inference is that it’s nothing more than that. An inference. When you’re describing someone as desperate enough to be “begging,” it’s very common to say they would “do anything” to get what they want. Most people understand that while the term “do anything” sound literally limitless, it’s not really limitless. No one is accusing Trump of saying Gillibrand would have committed murder, or sold one of her children, or wrestled a bear, to get campaign contributions.

Yet if you take “do anything” literally, which is necessary to infer the sexual connotation, then you’d have to include all those things too.

He said “do anything”! Sex is part of anything. Therefore he said sex!

But he didn’t.

My question is this: Why do the news media think about sex when the person being criticized is a woman? Trump didn’t say anything about sex. They did. Why are they sexually objectifying Kirsten Gillibrand?

This is part of a well-established trend in which the media use their imaginations to pull out the worst possible interpretation of something Trump says and report it as if that’s clearly and obviously the one and only thing he meant. The problem is he didn’t say it.

And they wonder why people believe Trump when he says the media report fake news.


Dan Calabrese -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

A new edition of Dan’s book “Powers and Principalities” is now available in hard copy and e-book editions. Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: