Friday December 14, 2018
Home Opinion Will Women Ta...

Will Women Take a Gamble on Donald Trump?

0
//
Republish
Reprint
It is, perhaps, one of the most controversial the U.S. presidential races to date, and the reason? Donald Trump. He is a hot topic of conversation and debates across the country, causing quite a stir. It is a love-hate relationship for most, toward a man who doesn’t hold back. This is a refreshing change for a political candidate and it has captured the attention of the American public.
There has been quite a storm regarding Trump’s candid remarks to belittle and insult females. As a result, some women would love nothing more than to squash his sexist remarks with their 4-inch high heels, or if preferred, combat boots. He has even gone as far as to attack some of the biggest celebrities in the business, like Angelina Jolie, Bette Midler, Sarah Jessica Parker, Rose O’Donnell and Cher.Quotes degrading women date back as early as the 1990’s:

1991 – Esquire interview: “You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”

1997 – The Art of the Comback: “I love you very much, but just in case things don’t work out, this is what you will get in the divorce. There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.”

2004 – How to Get Rich: “It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on ‘The Apprentice’ were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal.”

2005 – The Art of Being The Donald: “My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.”

2011 – Elizabeth Beck in a CNN interview to Trump’s reaction when a lawyer requested a break to pump breast milk for her baby: “He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, ‘You’re disgusting, you’re disgusting,’ and he ran out of there.”

It is amazing that Mr. Trump leads in any of the polls where he, not only makes outrageous sexist statements about women, but hits below the belt with comments towards other races and uncalled-for jabs at his political opponents.

So, why has Donald Trump gained such recognition? Is it honesty that Americans crave so much, that they are willing to accept anything Trump says? Is it due to too many politicians’ sugar-coated speeches that have soured our perception; and how does the rest of the world feel about Trump?

On an international level, there is a vested interest, which even includes the United Kingdom, who are laying their money down on the presidential election.

Whether Trump makes it to the White House or not has piqued the interest of gamblers who typically throw their money down at the Craps tables, Horses or Sports betting and the not-so-typical gambling type. By the time the winner walks through the White House doors, it could be record-breaking wagering in European countries.

According to the popular Ladbroke bookies, it is Trump 4 to 1 for president and 8 to 1 for Hilary Clinton who is the overwhelming favorite.

As for women exclusively, are they forgiving enough to elect Trump? If you are willing to take a gamble, chances are, it would be a resounding unforgiving verdict.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 NewsGram

Next Story

Trump Can’t Deny Birth Control Coverage: U.S. Court

The case became more complicated after the Trump administration last month issued new birth control coverage rules that are set to supersede those at issue in the lawsuit before the 9th Circuit.

0
birth control, contraceptive
A one-month dosage of hormonal birth control pills is displayed in Sacramento, Calif. VOA

A divided U.S. appeals court Thursday blocked rules by the Trump administration that allowed more employers to opt out of providing women with no-cost birth control.

The ruling, however, may be short lived because the administration has adopted new rules on contraceptive coverage that are set to take effect next month and will likely prompt renewed legal challenges.

Thursday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concerned changes to birth control coverage requirements under President Barack Obama’s health care law that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued in October 2017.

States were likely to succeed on their claim that those changes were made without required notice and public comment, the appeals court panel said in a 2-1 decision.

USA, birth control
A man stands outside the main door of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals building in San Francisco. VOA

The majority upheld a preliminary injunction against the rules issued by U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam last year. It, however, limited the scope of the injunction, applying it only to the five states in the lawsuit and not the entire country.

Another federal judge also blocked the rules, and her nationwide injunction remains in place.

An email to the Justice Department seeking comment was not immediately returned.

Obama’s health care law required most companies to cover birth control at no additional cost, though it included exemptions for religious organizations. The new policy allowed more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing free contraception to women by claiming religious objections. It also allowed any company that is not publicly traded to deny coverage on moral grounds.

The Department of Justice said in court documents that the rules were about protecting a small group of “sincere religious and moral objectors” from having to violate their beliefs. The changes were favored by social conservatives who are staunch supporters of President Donald Trump.

Reproductive Rights, abortion, women, birth control
A community health worker holds up contraceptives during a lecture on family planning at a reproductive health clinic run by an NGO in Tondo city, metro Manila. VOA

California filed a lawsuit to block the changes that was joined by Delaware, Maryland, New York and Virginia.

“Today’s decision is an important step to protect a woman’s right to access cost-free birth control and make independent decisions about her own reproductive health care,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement.

‘Economic harm’

The states argued that the changes could result in millions of women losing free birth control services, forcing them to seek contraceptive care through state-run programs or programs that the states had to reimburse.

The states show with “reasonable probability” that the new rules will lead women to lose employer-sponsored contraceptive coverage, “which will then result in economic harm to the states,” 9th Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace, a nominee of Republican President Richard Nixon, wrote for the majority.

Reproductive Rights, abortion, women, birth control
Newer Contraception Tries to Engage Men. VOA

In a dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said the economic harm to the states was “self-inflicted” because they chose to provide contraceptive coverage to women. The states, therefore, did not have the authority to bring the lawsuit, said Kleinfeld, a nominee of Republican President George H.W. Bush.

Also Read: To Diversify The Industry, Apple Pledges To Train More Women

The case became more complicated after the Trump administration last month issued new birth control coverage rules that are set to supersede those at issue in the lawsuit before the 9th Circuit. Under the new rules, large companies whose stock is sold to investors won’t be able to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage.

Wallace said the new rules did not make the case before the 9th Circuit moot because they are not set to take effect until January. (VOA)