Fiorina on Trump: 'There. Is. No. Excuse.'

[Carling]

If he 'didn't say' it, then the only conclusion to come to is that he is incredibly dense.

Do you like that idea, Carling?

Because 'he meant something else' doesn't cut it here.

Why would he mention her eyes first?  I guess I don't automatically think of menstration when blood is associated with a woman.

And yes, I do think he's dense in that he often speaks before thinking, along with him being a pompous gasbag, too.

[musiclady]

I'm not mocking you.  Had Trump actually said what he's being accused of, I'd be criticizing him.  As I posted earlier, this reminds me of the Trent Lott nonsense that caused his fall from grace.  Liberals assign meaning to fit their narrative.  I've seen this play out so many times before, and it amazes me how people then view that narrative as fact.

I'm not even remotely liberal.

And it wasn't much of a stretch to know what he was saying, and I certainly didn't rely on anyone on the left to show it to me.

Perhaps you should put yourself in the place of a woman who has been the subject of ridicule by men for millennia for just a moment and not pass off the criticism of what he said....... the words he really said......  as some kind of leftist nonsense.  It's not.

What he said was completely out of line.  Again, what he really, really said.

Blaming legitimate reaction on the media is just making an excuse for a man who has no class, no respect for women, nor dignity.

[musiclady]

Why would he mention her eyes first?  I guess I don't automatically think of menstration when blood is associated with a woman.

And yes, I do think he's dense in that he often speaks before thinking, along with him being a pompous gasbag, too.

A pompous gasbag who has no respect for women......

[alicewonders]

I'm not sure I've seen anyone 'gasp,' but it IS kind of unusual for anyone to publicly make such an unabashed sexist comment.

My point is that, just because militant political 'feminists' make absurd accusations about men (and conservative women) doesn't mean that genuine sexism doesn't exist.  It does.

There would be no difference, IMO, in saying that real racism doesn't exist because the likes of Al Sharpton have bastardized the issue.

I think we need to be careful (especially as women) not to excuse bad behavior just because militant feminists have wacko man-hating personal issues.

This situation, IMO, involves a very real breach of appropriate conduct, and I, for one, am disturbed by the thought that anyone so crude and lacking in self-control would be our nominee in perhaps the most critical election in our history.

I am certainly not excusing what Trump said - what he said was vulgar and off-putting.  He is showing himself to be a complete jerk.  And yes - sexism most certainly exists - on BOTH sides of the aisle! 

I hate you because you're a man/woman.
I hate you because you're rich.
I hate you because of your religion, ....because you're black, ......because you have red hair.

It's all hate.

To address your last comment:

This situation, IMO, involves a very real breach of appropriate conduct, and I, for one, am disturbed by the thought that anyone so crude and lacking in self-control would be our nominee in perhaps the most critical election in our history.

If Donald Trump becomes our nominee, it says a lot more about America than it does about Donald Trump.  I don't know anyone here who is excusing what he said or giving him a pass on it - and I understand why you are disturbed.  I think the GOP has let a lot of bad feelings fester within the party by dismissing people's legitimate complaints about the way they are letting Democrats run roughshod over them and for not representing their constituent's concern about it - except at election time when they pay lip service to it and then go back to politics as usual when they get back in the cushy offices.  A lot of people have been complaining about it, at least since 2006.  It's what the tea party and the 9/12 march was all about - and a lot of people out there feel like their voices are being ignored.

Trump is feeding on that and it is scary.  He can do a lot of damage, but I don't see many in the party realizing why this is happening - and trying to figure out what to do about it.  The Republican party has ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room and now it is getting hungry.

[Carling]

We'll have to disagree. Trump also said Wallace had blood coming from his eyes, too, which to me means he was talking about blood pressure.

I just don't see how the word "wherever" is such a tell on his intent, especially when he used a similar blood analogy about Chris Wallace.

[flowers]

Why would he mention her eyes first?  I guess I don't automatically think of menstration when blood is associated with a woman.

And yes, I do think he's dense in that he often speaks before thinking, along with him being a pompous gasbag, too.

Same here...why eyes first? he also said it about wallace

[Carling]

Same here...why eyes first? he also said it about wallace

Don Lemon certainly didn't make the assumption that many here are making.  Has anyone else actually listened to the entire segment?  It's clear what he was talking about, and it wasn't at all sexist. Thin-skinned and boorish, sure, but that's to be expected from him.

[flowers]

, but I don't see many in the party realizing why this is happening - and trying to figure out what to do about it.  The Republican party has ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room and now it is getting hungry.

You are correct the anti-tea party types i bet don't understand why this is happening. Yes the 800 pound gorilla is ravenous.

[musiclady]

I am certainly not excusing what Trump said - what he said was vulgar and off-putting.  He is showing himself to be a complete jerk.  And yes - sexism most certainly exists - on BOTH sides of the aisle! 

I hate you because you're a man/woman.
I hate you because you're rich.
I hate you because of your religion, ....because you're black, ......because you have red hair.

It's all hate.

To address your last comment:
If Donald Trump becomes our nominee, it says a lot more about America than it does about Donald Trump.  I don't know anyone here who is excusing what he said or giving him a pass on it - and I understand why you are disturbed.  I think the GOP has let a lot of bad feelings fester within the party by dismissing people's legitimate complaints about the way they are letting Democrats run roughshod over them and for not representing their constituent's concern about it - except at election time when they pay lip service to it and then go back to politics as usual when they get back in the cushy offices.  A lot of people have been complaining about it, at least since 2006.  It's what the tea party and the 9/12 march was all about - and a lot of people out there feel like their voices are being ignored.

Trump is feeding on that and it is scary.  He can do a lot of damage, but I don't see many in the party realizing why this is happening - and trying to figure out what to do about it.  The Republican party has ignored the 800 pound gorilla in the room and now it is getting hungry.

On that, we agree 100% (as we do on most things!).

The Republicans have fueled the rage against them by being elected and then doing almost nothing to fulfill their promises.

They ARE ignoring us, and not only that, are belittling us as 'extremists' almost to the extent that the Dems are.... though not as overtly.

My fear is that this legitimate anger has made people lose emotional control to the point where they want a jerk like Trump just because he's mean enough to put everyone in their place.

The office of President of the United States should require tact and honor, and Trump has neither.  But even on this board, pointing those things out results in being called a 'hater.'............. which is absurd.

One thing I have believed about conservatism, is that we are rational people, and not emotion-based as leftists are.  We THINK, and don't just FEEL, like liberals do (even smart ones).

But I'm afraid Donald Trump is killing the brain cells of some normally rational people.  We can't let raw emotion drive the choice of who is arguably the most important person in the world. 

[musiclady]

We'll have to disagree. Trump also said Wallace had blood coming from his eyes, too, which to me means he was talking about blood pressure.

I just don't see how the word "wherever" is such a tell on his intent, especially when he used a similar blood analogy about Chris Wallace.

I don't want to belabor this, but did he say 'wherever' about Wallace?

There's a difference in how a sexist addresses a man, and how he addresses a woman.

Sorry, Carling, but it's true.  Trump doesn't respect women.

[Carling]

I don't want to belabor this, but did he say 'wherever' about Wallace?

There's a difference in how a sexist addresses a man, and how he addresses a woman.

Sorry, Carling, but it's true.  Trump doesn't respect women.

Neither of us are going to change our mind.  Is it at all possible to you that he meant the same thing for both Kelly and Wallace?

Have you actually watched the entire segment?  I just don't see how anyone who has isn't making a gigantic assumptive leap would infer he was definitely talking about menstral cycles.

[bkepley]

Neither of us are going to change our mind.  Is it at all possible to you that he meant the same thing for both Kelly and Wallace?

Have you actually watched the entire segment?  I just don't see how anyone who has isn't making a gigantic assumptive leap would infer he was definitely talking about menstral cycles.

Maybe when he called her a "bimbo" that also meant something else?

[musiclady]

Neither of us are going to change our mind.  Is it at all possible to you that he meant the same thing for both Kelly and Wallace?

Have you actually watched the entire segment?  I just don't see how anyone who has isn't making a gigantic assumptive leap would infer he was definitely talking about menstral cycles.

Not likely that he meant the same thing.  Otherwise he wouldn't have added the "wherever" slam specifically for Megyn.

Nonetheless, I agree that you're not going to change my mind by defending Trump, and I'm not going to change your mind by pointing out what is obvious to a woman who has heard insults like this for decades.

It's not that much of a 'leap' if you've heard the same song and dance by sexist idiots before.  (Carly obviously has heard the same kind of insults a lot in her professional life.  Women do when they tread new territory as she has).

I don't blame you for not having paid attention to insults directed at us.  Just think about it a while, and maybe you'll at least soften your view about what is 'assumptive' and what is evident.

[EdinVA]

We'll have to disagree. Trump also said Wallace had blood coming from his eyes, too, which to me means he was talking about blood pressure.

I just don't see how the word "wherever" is such a tell on his intent, especially when he used a similar blood analogy about Chris Wallace.

Its the war on women don't  you see?
Women are equal until they are not, it is up to us to know where that line is.
In a fight, you fight to win. In a fight, you get mad, if you don't get mad, then you lose.
People are so averse to someone standing up for themselves that they will politically destroy anyone who does.
Trump fights fights all the time, big fights, legal fights, political fights and contract fights and anyone in a senior corporate position fight knows it is dirty and hard.

[musiclady]

Its the war on women don't  you see?
Women are equal until they are not, it is up to us to know where that line is.
In a fight, you fight to win. In a fight, you get mad, if you don't get mad, then you lose.
People are so averse to someone standing up for themselves that they will politically destroy anyone who does.
Trump fights fights all the time, big fights, legal fights, political fights and contract fights and anyone in a senior corporate position fight knows it is dirty and hard.

It has absolutely nothing to do with the 'war on women.'

Stop being absurd, evad.

In boxing, when you punch, you don't hit below the belt.  (FAR more important if your opponent is a man than a woman, btw  ).

Trump hit below the belt and is being called on it.

Don't defend dirty fighting.

[Carling]

Maybe when he called her a "bimbo" that also meant something else?

The bimbo things tells me he doesn't use code for his insults.  There is no ambiguity in that insult.  Trump is like Charles Barkley in that manner.

Whichever flunky runs his Twitter account retweeted that comment.  Yes, it was in poor taste, but the fact is he used similar analogies for Kelly and Wallace, and the two things are separate.  He treated them equally, as you could tell when watching it, and it's mainly people taking one sentence out of context to hurt him politically.  I'm fine with destroying him as a candidate, but I'd at least like some intellectual honesty.

Is it all all possible that he meant the same thing for both Kelly and Wallace?

[Carling]

It has absolutely nothing to do with the 'war on women.'

Stop being absurd, evad.

In boxing, when you punch, you don't hit below the belt.  (FAR more important if your opponent is a man than a woman, btw  ).

Trump hit below the belt and is being called on it.

Don't defend dirty fighting.

I think it's dirty fighting to make assumptions based on personal reaction to a dumb analogy that Trump used on both a male and a female.

[musiclady]

I think it's dirty fighting to make assumptions based on personal reaction to a dumb analogy that Trump used on both a male and a female.

You're kidding..................... right??

(I sure hope so, because Trump's demeaning women and our noticing the obvious aren't exactly in the same category.....)

[musiclady]

I think it's dirty fighting to make assumptions based on personal reaction to a dumb analogy that Trump used on both a male and a female.

btw, the 'bimbo' insult factors in here, like it or not.

Trump thinks that degrading women is acceptable.

I'm sure you don't, so your defense of him here is pretty weird.

[240B]

When the rumors came out he was running I thought for sure it was like he always does, a Celebrity Apprentice was in the works. Yet I see nothing of one in the works. He used to be a hillary fan right? She went to his last wedding. He doesn't do anything without some sort of gain for him. Having hil as prez would sure help him out with many favors if he runs 3rd party. which is what I think he is doing.

Wow, that post really got my attention. That is quite possible. It makes a lot of sense.

[bkepley]

btw, the 'bimbo' insult factors in here, like it or not.

Trump thinks that degrading women is acceptable.

I'm sure you don't, so your defense of him here is pretty weird.

That kind of stupid insult is unacceptable in a presidential candidate regardless of whether it is sexist or not.  He is just not fit for any high office.  People say he would be tough.  I think he would be a fool and make a fool out of the whole country.

[Carling]

btw, the 'bimbo' insult factors in here, like it or not.

Trump thinks that degrading women is acceptable.

I'm sure you don't, so your defense of him here is pretty weird.

I find the bimbo thing awful, because I know what he meant.  That doesn't mean I'm going to interpret something he didn't say, or may have meant to say, to mean what I think it does.  Words have meaning to me.  I'm analytical like that.   

Is it at all possible that he was using the same analogy re: Kelly and Wallace?  You haven't answered this simple question.

[Carling]

That kind of stupid insult is unacceptable in a presidential candidate regardless of whether it is sexist or not.  He is just not fit for any high office.  People say he would be tough.  I think he would be a fool and make a fool out of the whole country.

I agree 100%, with the caveat that our current President has already made a fool out of the whole country.  We need a Cruz, Walker, Kasich, or Rubio.  I'd add Fiorina, but I think she's too inexperienced in politics, like Trump.

[musiclady]

I find the bimbo thing awful, because I know what he meant.  That doesn't mean I'm going to interpret something he didn't say, or may have meant to say, to mean what I think it does.  Words have meaning to me.  I'm analytical like that.   

Is it at all possible that he was using the same analogy re: Kelly and Wallace?  You haven't answered this simple question.

I'm analytical too, Carling, and I'm currently analyzing the fact that you've said I haven't answered a question that you didn't ask me.

But never mind that.....

It is 'possible' that he was using the same analogy for both Kelly and Wallace, but more likely that even if he were doing so, that he added the sexism for added bite for Kelly.

In addition, if you believe words have meaning, why are you twisting in order to say that Trump didn't mean the word he actually used, and that it didn't 'mean' anything.

I think you need to apply your own standards to your own argument.

It's OK if you want to argue that he didn't mean what he actually said, but I wouldn't exactly call it "intellectual honesty" to do so.

He clearly degrades women, so the stretch is for you to believe he didn't mean to do so rather than for me to believe he did.

And again..... if you had spent more than 5 decades reading how degrading men in power have been to women who threaten them, you would understand that it's far more possible that Trump was trying to keep Kelly in line than it is to think it was some sort of generic swipe on both Wallace and Kelly.

[truth_seeker]

Certainly our allies can't be thrilled that America could be elevating Trump, to replace Obama?

What is Angela Merkel to expect? She makes one move he opposes, and he calls her one of his distasteful insulting names?