Why I support Trump

So this is going to be a very long one folks, but I really think I need to get this one out there.

I find that whenever I tell people that I think Trump is the best of the US Presidential hopefuls, that I always, always, get a negative reaction. There’s literally only one person that I’ve spoken to so far who shares my view (if you’re reading this, you know who you are). So, I think the time has come for me to clarify just why exactly I’ve come to these conclusions.

I’ll start off by responding to the main arguments I’ve heard used against him. The first is that he’s a racist, and there are two incidents in particular that are cited to back up this claim. His comments about Mexicans, and his comments about Muslims. I’ll deal  with the Mexicans first.

Racism towards Mexicans

The biased media has claimed that Trump generalised the Mexican people (including American citizens of Mexican heritage) as criminals, specifically rapists and drug dealers. In reality, he made no such generalisation. He never suggested that all Mexicans were criminals. He never said that all immigrants coming from Mexico are criminals. He never even said that all illegal immigrants are criminals (even though I guess technically speaking, it is a crime, albeit a non-violent one by definition to immigrate illegally). No, lets listen to what he actually said. (Skip to 1:40)

The quote from the video above

So as can be seen above, he didn’t generalise all Mexicans as criminals He simply stated that there are problems with many of the ones who are coming to America. And he’s not technically wrong in what he’s saying. Here are links to several articles from before he made those comments, concerning criminal acts committed by illegal Mexican immigrants.

Murders committed by illegal Mexican immigrants



Mexican gangs smuggling drugs into America








Rapes committed by illegal Mexican immigrants









So these are actual specific events that back up his claims. As already pointed out, he never said that all Mexicans are doing this. Nor did he say that he wanted to get rid of all Mexican people from America. He just said that there is a problem with illegal immigrants from Mexico committing these types of crimes, and as can be seen here, there are numerous incidents that confirm this. If something is true, then why can’t it be pointed out? Surely, protecting American citizens from potential rapists, murderers, and drug gangs, is more important than trying not to offend people. So what exactly is the problem with trying to protect their southern border and controlling who comes in to the country? There’s absolutely nothing unreasonable about a sovereign nation protecting its borders and choosing who it lets through.

You may have noticed as well, that every single article is from some variation of NBC. This is because NBC made a point of cancelling a deal with Trump to host the Miss Universe pageant in protest over his comments about Mexican immigrants. Showing that NBC themselves have posted numerous articles in the past that back up exactly what he said just shows how ridiculous the whole situation is. Political correctness dictates that facts don’t really matter. Only emotions do. They literally pulled out of a deal because he said offensive things that they themselves know is true.

“We had to pull out because his comments might be offensive to Mexican rapists and drug dealers.”

Racism towards Muslims

So now that that is out of the way. lets move on to his comments about Muslims. First of all, I think it’s stupid that people actually try to to say that he was racist at all in this case, because Islam is not a race. However, lets just pretend it is, and we’ll look at why I think his comments about Muslims were also perfectly reasonable.

It’s important to note that Trump made his controversial comments about Muslims in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks (and long before what happened in Cologne and other European cities on New Year’s Eve). This is what he said first of all.

He called for a complete ban on Muslims entering America until America’s representatives could figure out what is going on (specifically, what sort of people are coming in from the Islamic world, and why so many of them harbour ill intent towards Americans). People have suggested that a ban such as this is unconstitutional. This is a complete lie. The American constitution is for the benefit of the American people specifically. It doesn’t apply to the rest of the world, as can be seen here, here, here, and here. The specific law that allows it states:

“Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president.  Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any c“lass of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

In fact, it’s nothing unusual for US Presidents to restrict immigration to groups which may be a threat to the country. During the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, Jimmy Carter stripped Iranians of Visas, and stopped issuing new visas to Iranian people altogether, temporarily. Even before this law existed, it wasn’t unusual for similar things to happen. During WW2, Italians, Germans, and  most famously, Japanese people, were rounded up and held in internment camps, because it was feared that these people may have an allegiance to their countries of origin, and thus be a threat to the American war effort. Regardless of the morality behind it, it was done because they felt it was the right thing to do to protect their own people, which is a country’s primary responsibility.

Not all Iranians were a threat to America during the Iranian hostage crisis, and not all Germans, Italians, or Japanese were a threat during WW2. However, a significant minority may well have been, and ultimately, the US has a duty of care to its own citizens, first and foremost. Rather than taking what they considered to be unnecessary chances, they took steps that they felt would ensure their own security.

By the same token, not all 1.6 Billion Muslims worldwide are a threat to America. I would agree that the majority aren’t. However it is simply a fact that America is currently at war with radical Islam, which a minority it may be, still makes up tens or possibly even hundreds of millions of individuals out of those 1.6 Billion. This can be seen from data in numerous polls that have been conducted on a diverse range of Muslims worldwide. There’s no way of knowing for certain which Muslims are extremists until they act. Therefore, is it really unreasonable to put the safety and wellbeing of your own citizens ahead of accommodating an alien group who you have no legal or moral obligation to, whose way of life is radically different from your own, and who share a variation of an ideology with people who want to destroy your own way of life and murder your own people?

And to be blunt, I stand by what I say about there being no moral obligation to let them in to the country. America is a country that was built on immigration. I’m not denying that. But, it was a country built on immigration from European countries specifically. European countries which despite their superficial differences, are still historically, culturally, religiously, and racially similar enough that they were able to integrate together peacefully. So for most of its history, including the early years when it was first getting built up, the vast majority of Americans were 1: White, and 2: Christians. These were the people who made America the most prosperous and powerful country on the planet, and it is their children, and their children’s children who deserved to inherit that prosperity as their birthright.

It wasn’t until the 1965 immigration act (after about 190 years of America favouring immigration from European countries) that borders were opened up to Asia, Africa, The Middle East, and South America. Proponents insisted that it wouldn’t change the demographics of the country. Of course, as we can see now, this was a complete lie. The once stable white majority of roughly 90% (who were Christian either religiously, or at least culturally so) has been reducing year on year ever since, as demographics shift in favour of non-whites (whose cultural and religious background is often quite different).


This was against the will of the white majority, who were perfectly happy living in a racially and culturally homogenous society. But of course, the will of the people has never actually mattered. You see, despite the fact that all people have a natural desire to live among people who are similar to themselves, white people are always told that they’re evil hate filled monsters for feeling this way. How dare we feel an uncontrollable, biological, gut feeling of discomfort, when we’re surrounded by people who we have nothing in common with? So even though Muslims (along with so many other groups) have no historical claim to America and did nothing to make America the successful country that it is, we’re led to believe that they have as much right to it as the people who made it what it was.

Just to put that in a smaller context, imagine your parents worked hard all their life, and managed to purchase a nice home, with lots of nice home comforts, and a decent chunk of savings in the bank. Now imagine instead of you inheriting that wealth when they passed away, you were told you had to share it with your neighbours, whose parents were unemployed drug addicts, with no wealth at the time of their death. If you didn’t want to share it, and instead wanted it for yourself and your own children, you’re an evil monster. That is essentially what is happening on a larger scale.

The white Americans are the descendants of the people who created this great prosperity, but instead of being allowed to inherit it and later pass it on to their own children, they’re told they don’t deserve it and have to share it with people from all over the world, who had nothing to do with creating it. And then they’re constantly told by the media and the educational system about how privileged they are for being born white, and how wonderful it is that as a demographic, they’re declining. Being born with white skin is like the modern day version of Original Sin. Can you really blame them for feeling pissed off?

As a white guy myself, I have absolutely no problem with people of other races. However even so, I do believe that we, like all others, have our own specific racial and ethnic interests, which we are within our rights to pursue. All ethnic and racial groups have the right to exist, the right to a living space, and a right to preserve and pass down their way of life to future generations. In the modern world, it’s perfectly reasonable for all other groups: Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, etc., to lobby on behalf of their group interests, and it is considered empowering for them to do so. But if white people try to do the same thing, it’s racist and evil. This can be seen just by Googling “Black Pride”, “Asian Pride” and “White Pride”, and comparing what is said about each.

Encourages black people to celebrate their culture and heritage.
Used by Asians to signal their viewpoints.
A slogan used by Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists

I’ve never been able to stand this double standard regarding the pursuit of ethnic self interest if you’re a white person. Loving your own people, culture, and heritage is not synonymous with hating others. I feel that Trump is representing the racial interests of white Americans and as far as I’m concerned, they have a right to have those interests represented, because it isn’t necessarily a bad or immoral thing. If it is, can anyone explain why it is? Because I honestly can’t see it.

As I’ve pointed out in the past, a country is a reflection of the people living there, not the other way around. America, just like Canada, New Zealand, Australia (and formerly, Rhodesia and South Africa) is a success because it was built by Europeans, and emulated the European way of doing things. It’s not as if its geographical location just magically allows it be so prosperous. If it was, the Native American tribes would have had the same success as the European settlers, and Mexico would be just as prosperous as America and Canada are.

I know it seems as if I’m going off on a tangent, but the point I’m making is this. America isn’t just successful by chance. It’s not as if the white, European, Christian settlers, just stumbled upon this great prosperity through dumb luck undeservingly.  It’s successful because of the hardwork and creativity of those settlers, their children, their grandchildren and so on, up until the present day. So why should that prosperity that was created by a specific demographic, be handed over to an outside group, whose ancestors did absolutely nothing to contribute to its creation? I see absolutely no reason why it should be, so I don’t see why it’s considered wrong to exclude outsiders from coming in and demanding a piece of the pie, without having contributed anything.

Does that mean that I personally think that all Muslims should be banned from the Western world outright? No, of course not. My attitude has always been this. I don’t care what race, religion, culture etc., you are. As long as you respect the values of the society that you come to, integrate, and work hard, I have no problem with you. However, that doesn’t mean I think you have a God given right to demand that a sovereign nation open up their borders to you. The people of that sovereign nation should have the right to decide if they want you or not, and if they decide that there are no benefits to it for them, or that the benefits are outweighed by the risks involved then that’s their decision.

Immigration policy is entirely at the discretion of the host country, so they should stand to benefit from it too, and should be able to decide if it’s worth it or not. Personally, I think the risk of terrorist attacks from Islamic extremists, rape epidemics, and an erosion and possible replacement of Western culture, far outweigh any benefits of uncontrolled immigration. Now controlled and reasonable immigration policies that allows for industries with a shortage of qualified employees, to recruit and employ immigrants with the specific skills needed (for example, doctors or IT specialists)? Absolutely, I have no problem with that. But I’m not American, so I can’t tell them what to think. If they don’t agree with me, well that’s just too bad. That’s their choice.

Anyway, I think I’ve dealt with the racism accusations long enough (I’m really hoping that I’ve covered everything that I needed to). Now, if you don’t think I’m an evil hate filled Nazi, I’ll move on to other points.

He’ll start a war

The next point I’ve heard is that the guy is an unhinged lunatic who will end up starting yet another American war. I don’t buy this for a second. As I addressed in my previous post, Trump is the only candidate who seems to want to improve American relations with Russia. The two most powerful countries in the world on good terms? To me that sounds like a good thing for peace in the world. Now compare this to Hillary Clinton, who seems to be urging for a war with Russia to protect so called “moderate terrorists” in Syria (which don’t even exist), or a war with Iran. Or on the Republican side of things, compare it to Ted Cruz who wants to tear up the Iran nuclear deal, or to carpet bomb ISIS territories (which would be considered a war crime due to the high civilian casualty rate). Who exactly is Trump threatening to start a war with? Maybe an escalation of attacks against ISIS (through legal methods, and in tandem with ongoing Russian efforts). Needless to say, Trump isn’t the one who is seeming like an unhinged warmonger to me.


Next up, is the idea that Trump is supposedly a misogynist. Now in this case, I’ve only ever heard the accusation leveled, but never specific examples of why this is so. Therefore, I’ve had to look into this myself in more detail, so if I address the wrong point here, and miss the actual specific incident or incidents that people are referencing to back up this claim, then please link it in the comments so I can see it for myself.

So after Googling the words “Donald Trump Misogynist” a lot of stuff comes up. It’s difficult to know where to start really. This link here could be a good starting point. From what I can see however from reading it, a lot of the supposed sexist/misogynistic incidents are just that he said mean things to specific women such as Hillary Clinton, Rosie O’Donnell, Megyn Kelly, etc. Often, he insults their weight, their looks, their intelligence, or their character. How exactly is that misogynistic? Why is it misogyny to call A WOMAN (not women in general) that he has a problem with personally, a fat, ugly, slob? Would it be misandry if a woman said the same things to A MAN that she had a problem with? No of course not, that would be ridiculous. In a truly equal society, a man insulting specific women shouldn’t be misogyny any more than a woman insulting specific men is misandry. So why do people focus specifically on Trump’s mean comments towards women he dislikes, while ignoring his mean comments to men he dislikes, or all the mean comments that women make about him? Why the double standard depending on the target?

“He called Rosie O’Donnell ‘fat’. Misogyny, because he insulted a woman!!!”
“He called Cher an average talent who is out of touch with reality. Misogyny, because he insulted a woman!!!”
“He said Hillary can’t satisfy her husband seeing as he cheated on her. Misogyny, because he insulted a woman”
“People insult his hair, his divorces, and his bankruptcies. Not misandry”

On the opposite end of the scale, he has been accused of being sexist for making statements about attractive women, which are perceived as being objectifying. For example, that women on The Apprentice need to be attractive, that female news anchors need to be attractive to get their job, or has made cocky statements about his own attractiveness to women. If people find these comments sexist, then I can’t see how I can change their mind. All I can say is that I’m sure most men, even those who act like perfect gentlemen on most occasions, are guilty of objectifying women in some form. They may look at porn, they may check out attractive women that they see, they might brag about their sexual exploits to their peers etc. Just because they aren’t doing it as bluntly or as openly as he is, doesn’t mean that they are angels. Is Trump saying that a female news anchor needs to be attractive for her job, really any worse than men who don’t say it, but who pay more attention to her than they would otherwise because she’s attractive?

I wonder how many men would pay attention to RTE news if it was just Dobbo, or if Sharon wasn’t this good looking?

I’ll openly admit that this is probably a very weak defence, but I guess I just don’t see where the issue is with Trump specifically here. So he finds attractive women more appealing to look at than unattractive ones and he has an arrogant, inflated sense of his own attractiveness to women. Is that really so horrible? It’s not a particularly good thing, but I don’t see anything monstrous about it. If you look into his history a bit deeper, you’ll find that it’s not as if he only judges women based on their looks. Just the specific ones that he has no respect for. There are other women who he does respect. He’s willing to give intelligent, hardworking, and capable women the same opportunities that he gives men. For example, the person who was in charge of building his famous “Trump Tower” was actually a woman. What a horrible sexist, picking a woman to lead such an important project, because she happened to be the best person for the job.

I think his policy about prenups is just common sense. As an extremely wealthy man, he’s a prime target to attract potential gold diggers. Lets not pretend that they don’t exist. Why wouldn’t he want to take the necessary precautions to protect his own assets. If a woman really loved him for who he was and not what he owns, she should be confident that the marriage will last and shouldn’t have any problems signing a prenup.

The only comment here that I really think could be perceived as truly sexist is his tirade against a mother pumping breastmilk for her child. While he has the right to not find the sight of such things appealing, I think the mother’s right to feed her child is what comes first, so he should just get over himself and ignore it like an adult. So that’s one black mark for him. I still think the good outweighs the bad so far though.

And really now, who is  worse for women overall? A guy who says mean, hurtful things to specific women that he has a problem with? Or career politicians all over the western world who are importing a real life “rape culture” to their countries, inflicting it on the women they represent, then essentially blaming women who are victimised when sexual assaults happen?

*EDIT 2/19/16~ The link “a real life rape culture” used to link to a Wikipedia article with the title of “Taharrush Jamai”. The article has since had its title changed to “Mass Sexual Assaults in Egypt”, most likely to make it seem like an isolated incident, rather than the common occurrence it really is. To read more about this phenomenon, please check here, here, here, and here.*

He’s Homophobic

Again, much like the misogyny, this is one where I’ve only heard the accusation, but never any specific examples as to why this is so. So again, I decided to Google “Donald Trump Homophobic” and look at what comes up. One site, Pink News claims that Trump is opposed to gay marriage, as he “doesn’t feel good about it”, but has admitted to attending gay weddings, and he also doesn’t believe that gay employees should be fired for their sexuality. George Takei, a gay man who would know Trump better than most of Trump’s critics, seems to think that Trump may in fact support gay marriage afterall, or is at least, coming around to it. Now lets compare him to an opportunistic flip flopper like Hillary Clinton, who opposed gay marriage when the public opposed it, and started supporting it only when the public turned in favour of it, or to Obama, who was opposed to it in the run up to the presidency (when that was popular), but changed his view later when it wasn’t. Why is Trump singled out as being particularly bad? At least, whether you agree with him or not, he seems to have some integrity regarding his views. He either sticks to his views, or the changes seem like a genuine, natural progression based on new information or experiences, rather than cynically going with whatever seems popular with the masses at the time.

Anyway I think I’ve covered all the major complaints I’ve heard against him. Now that I’ve explained why I don’t oppose him, the next thing I’d like to address is why I support him specifically over the other candidates. In terms of competition, I only see three major challenges to him. Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. I’ve already explained why I oppose Cruz and Clinton, so that only leaves Sanders to discuss.

Bernie Sanders

Now on paper I will admit that I actually think Bernie Sanders is the best candidate by far. Most of his ideas sound like they’d be for the best. The main problem with Sanders however is that I think his kind of socialism is simply too radical for Americans to accept. Even if he did get into power, I just can’t see him being able to implement them. Just look at the difficulty  and opposition Obamacare has faced. Sanders’ ideas are far more radical than that even, and I just can’t see him being able to pass them successfully. The resistance would be too much.

And Sanders (for all he’s accomplished in the past) doesn’t strike me as being a strong enough figure anymore to command the respect necessary to take charge and implement what he wants. Just look at this video for example.



150814_POL_SandersBlackLivesMatter.jpg.CROP.promo-xlarge2 (1)

And once you watch the video, please take the time to read the comments too. He looked very weak backing down like this, and that kind of weakness is simply unacceptable from the person who is supposed to lead the most powerful country on the planet. Can you imagine someone who backs down from hecklers like this, standing up to congress opposition to his policies, or effectively dealing with leaders like Putin on the world stage? Personally, I think this perceived weakness could be a major disadvantage for him, and I’m sure I’m not the only one who can see this.

Both Sanders and Trump alike have been hailed as anti-establishment, and this is seen as a major reason for their current popularity. The voting public is sick of Goldman Sachs funded puppets like Cruz or Clinton, and Sanders and Trump are the only two candidates offering anything different. However, the mainstream media is part of the establishment. The entire mainstream media in America is controlled by just six major corporations. These six corporations have the power to shape public opinion, just by bombarding the public with memes and repeating them over and over, and from multiple (seemingly different) sources in a short space of time.

Now imagine if every one of these media figures was saying that Donald Trump is a racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ xenophobic/ lunatic. People might start to believe it even if there’s little or no evidence to back up the claims.





So I have to ask this question. If Bernie Sanders is anti-establishment, the mainstream media is part of the establishment, and the mainstream media has the power to shape public opinion, then why does the media speak so highly of him? Lets not pretend that the mainstream media has morals. This is the same media that lied about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction in order to drum up support for an unnecessary and needlessly destructive war. I doubt anyone in the establishment likes the idea of an anti-establishment president, or supports him out of some sense of “right and wrong”.

Therefore, the cynic in me says that Bernie either isn’t as anti-establishment as we’re led to believe, or if he is, he isn’t seen as much of a threat. No, I don’t have any proof of that, but based on what I’ve discussed so far, can you understand why I have this feeling? Trump on the other hand is causing them to panic. First they treated him as a joke. Then they claimed he was racist (in the hopes of scaring off his support). When that failed, they started calling him stupid. That too has failed to discourage support for him, and yet they just keep trying anything they can to bring him down, and if they aren’t doing that, they’re throwing childish temper tantrums full of ad hominem attacks, which show their true colours. Because of this, I believe Trump is the only true alternative to the establishment, and the only chance of something different in American Politics.

Other reasons

There are two other major reasons that I find myself drawn to Trump. The first is his stated opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership due to his concerns that it will lead to job losses for Americans. If he opposes this deal, and after seeing his views on trade deals with Mexico, then there is also a very real possibility that he opposes the Trans-Atlantic Trade Deal. That wouldn’t be a bad thing at all.

The other is his opposition to extreme political correctness and over sensitivity, and the fact that he’s moving the overton window back in a direction which allows for discussion and debate again, rather than censorship. I have nothing against the idea of being polite and respectful towards other people, but to be blunt, it has gotten too extreme. When you have idiots claiming to be cats trapped in human bodies, morbidly obese people using mobility scooters intended for disabled people, or demanding bigger seats on planes, comedians avoiding colleges because the students are thin skinned wusses who can’t handle humour, or the countless misfits on Tumblr and other forms of social media, crying oppression because 99% of the world doesn’t conform to their special snowflake views, you know that political correctness has gone too far. There’s a big difference between fighting against actual oppression and discrimination (which I support), and deliberately going out of the way to find innocent or trivial matters to be offended over. Trump seems to be creating an environment that is at odds with this stupid mindset, and I for one welcome it because people like this don’t deserve the right to demand that everyone else bends to their will.

*EDIT 27/2/16~ Trump has called for the Federal Reserve to be audited. We can add this as another reason why I support him. Check out this link to read about, and this link to watch a documentary explaining what the Federal Reserve is.*


I’m not saying Trump is a saint. I’m not even saying he’s a good person. I’m just saying that for me, a normal, young, working class, white male, that out of all the main candidates, Trump seems to be the best choice to represent the interests of people like me and my loved ones. There are far more important issues in the world right now than trying not to hurt people’s feelings, issues which I think Trump will address better than others. Of course, I’m not American, so he doesn’t directly affect me, nor do I have the option of supporting him. However as America dominates global affairs, he has the opportunity to serve as an example for our leaders to follow. Working to create an environment that fosters increased employment for his own citizens, protecting the lives of his own citizens, and saving us from the fascism that is extreme political correctness. Why do people oppose this?


6 thoughts on “Why I support Trump

    • Is there anything in particular that he’s said or done that stands out to you as being particularly sexist that I may have failed to address in the article? As I said, because I was researching it myself, rather than responding to a specific sexist incident that I was told about, I may have missed something worth responding to.


  1. If you can’t see his blatant sexism in the articles above, you must be blind. I’m actually disappointed that you consider the way he treats women as acceptable!
    He blatantly criticises women for their appearances not their views. He does not do this to male commentators, journalists or actors, or have I missed something?


    November 10, 2015: When he told Carly Fiorina to ‘stop interrupting’
    Trump singled out his female Republican rival for a dressing down, ignoring the fact his male counterparts were also talking over one another.
    His comment – “Why does she keep interrupting everybody?” – was immediately called sexist on social media.

    It’s no secret that there’s no love lost between Trump and comedian O’Donnell. Perhaps his most notorious rant against her came on American TV show Entertainment Tonight in 2006, when he said: “Rosie O’Donnell is disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she’s a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I’d fire Rosie. I’d look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’
    “We’re all a little chubby but Rosie’s just worse than most of us. But it’s not the chubbiness — Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out.”

    How dare anyone speak about another human being in such a manner? Reading the examples I gave, disgusts me, actually makes me really angry. It’s hard enough being a woman, we are supposed to look amazing all the time, and fulfill the role of the perfect woman.
    It is a pathetic way of arguing with someone, it makes me think that he has no answer to them, so reduces himself to personal comments and jibes.


    • As I said, I don’t see how his comments about the physical appearances of the women he hates are any worse than people insulting him for his hairstyle (ie, taking a visible aspect of his physical appearance and using it against him). Is it a low blow? Sure it is. But that’s the American political landscape in general. Nothing but ad hominem attacks. I think if you hate someone that intensely, and want to attack them, want to hurt them, you’re going to use everything in your arsenal against them whether it be their character, their intelligence, or yes, what they look like. He’s insulting those particular women, (many of whom have viciously attacked him too) not women in general. I feel as if it would be like telling me that I’m a sexist for my insults towards Angela Merkel. No, I’m not sexist. I just hate her and will speak as low of her as I can. And that’s what I think he’s doing towards the people he hates, whether they be women or men, but he’s tailoring the insults specifically to what he feels will hurt the specific target the most. And I think he’s far less of a misogynist than actual elected politicians in Europe telling women to cover up, or adopt a “code of conduct” so they don’t get sexually assaulted.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s