The New Republic has an interesting theory about Donald Trump. Trump is losing to Hillary Clinton because he is so completely sexist that he is incapable of taking Clinton seriously. And their arguments are pretty good.
In the primaries, his opponents were all men except for Carly Fiorina. Note that all of Trump’s insults against Fiorina were about how she looked. Trump does not know how to treat women as anything other than sex objects.
Lucky for Trump, Fiorina was never a serious threat, but Clinton is. And Trump doesn’t know what to do. When he does attack Clinton, it is about how she looks. A week ago, he told a crowd at a rally that during the second debate “when she walked in front of me, believe me, I wasn’t impressed.” Seriously? He’s trying to compete against her for the presidency, and all he can think about is what her ass looks like?
So if he can’t attack a woman as an equal, what does Trump do? He attacks other men.
He goes after Bill Clinton by bringing his accusers to the second debate. Which is a stupid thing to do because in the past Bill’s marriage problems just made people more sympathetic to Hillary.
Now Trump is attacking Obama by inviting his estranged half-brother to the debate tonight, as if that would in any way hurt Clinton. If anything, Obama has high favorability ratings, so linking Clinton to Obama will just help her; and besides, Malik is not her brother.
Or worse, he attacks Paul Ryan, or John McCain. Even Trump’s ally Newt Gingrich called Trump “frankly pathetic” for the attacks, pointing out “Donald Trump has one opponent. Her name is Hillary Clinton. Her name is not Paul Ryan. It’s not anybody else. It’s Hillary Clinton.”
The article points out that “Trump was a happy warrior during the Republican primaries” because “he displayed tactical skill in picking off his enemies at the appropriate moment and staying on message when he needed to crush them.” But in the general election against a woman, he is floundering, cannot stay on message for even the length of a speech, and is clearly rattled by Clinton.
For example, Trump totally lost it when Clinton brought up Alicia Machado, bellowing “How do you know that?” at the debate and then spent more than a week insulting Machado and talking about how she was a big problem because she was overweight.
Trump is so obsessed with women as sexual objects that he even talks — inappropriately — about his daughter Ivanka that way. Hell, he even talks about pre-teen girls, evaluating them as to whether some day they will turn into women he can date.
If you believe this theory, then Clinton is clearly the best of the Democratic candidates to beat Trump.
Also published on Medium.
About Trump inviting Malik Obama (Obama’s half brother) to be his guest at tonight’s debate, Trump said “I look very much forward to meeting and being with Malik. He gets it far better than his brother.” Of course, people quickly pointed out that Malik has said he wants to abolish Israel and also supports Hamas, which advocates for the genocide of Jews.
“supports Hamas, which advocates for the genocide of Jews.”
When did Hamas say that?
Hassan, it is in their charter. See http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/22/9-things-you-need-to-know-about-hamas-straight-from-its-charter/
Here is the (translated) text from their charter:
Some people argue that Hamas has moved beyond their original charter, but you can’t deny that they did say that.
Iron Knee, by your definition then evangelical christians advocate for the genocide of Jews. (quoting prophecy)
Well, other than the fact that the Hamas charter is from 1988 and Christian prophecy is thousands of years old, you are correct. Although your case would have been stronger if you actually pointed to (or quoted) the Christian prophecy that advocates for the genocide of Jews.