Friendly criticism is fine, and no doubt Biden will attract quite a lot, as he is quite a klutz, but a point comes when it tips over into destructiveness. Harris is bound to get hauled over the coals, about various things, but to what end? Some on the left are frothing at the mouth, which seems risky, and the shadow of misogyny hovers.
I've been shocked at the amount of sexism this thread has uncovered and gone unchecked.
Someone up-thread even supposed that women who don't like Kamala are jus' jealous because she's so pretty.
Funny how in all this time no man on the Trump thread has been told he didn't like Trump because he was jealous of all Trump's money and his sexy wife, or because he's taller than them. No one was warned that the shadow of misandry hovered.
Nope, it's just me, who wanted Susan Rice for Veep and would have preferred a woman in Biden's place, who's getting told that I don't like women, or that I think women are all deceitful and manipulative, or I'm just jealous.
And it's because they think that's how women are and how they think about other women.
You really seem to have a hidden agenda here, although I have no idea what it is.
You also sound like a Trumpist with this "hidden agenda" nonsense.
Oh yes. Twilight at her outdated computer in Ohio is going to subvert the Democratic party and run herself as a write in candidate on a platform of more caramel sauce on Dairy Queen's sundaes.
O...k...
Haven't been to a DQ in aeons, but I liked them. Especially, IIRC, vanilla ice cream dipped (ahead of time) into a butterscotch coating that dried into a shell.
Twilight, it's just that your posts re KH come across as painful and angry. But IMVHO you seem more interested in trashing KH than in feeling relief that a) Biden has a VP candidate, who's both a woman (!YAY!) and African-American (!YAY!); and b) maybe we just might fire T.
The comment about white women candidates not being considered (IIRC) seemed odd, too. Is that about Elizabeth Warren? I'd cheer for her; but I think she's much better suited to the Senate, and can do more good there.
Or is some of this ongoing grief and rage over Hillary not taking office? Believe me, I've had a lot of that.
You don't have to say, but I think is why some Shipmates are finding your posts confusing.
In the past election, while women of color voted for Clinton in large majority, 53% of white women voted for Trump in spite of every awful thing we knew about him. I don't know why, but it appears that many white women simply wont vote for another white woman. It remains to be seen if they will vote for a black woman. I wont count Trump out yet.
Can't say I understand why there would any controversy. She's not the current American vice president and not the current president. She appears to be strong and smart. Being a woman is relevant only because because politics (and most other professions, if politics is actually a profession) are very sexist. So whatever her deficits and shortcomings are, they'll be over-estimated because she's a woman. For the sake of the world which suffers under inordinate influence of 4 to 5% of the earth's population she'd be involved in ruling, let's hope she's on the winning side.
Friendly criticism is fine, and no doubt Biden will attract quite a lot, as he is quite a klutz, but a point comes when it tips over into destructiveness. Harris is bound to get hauled over the coals, about various things, but to what end? Some on the left are frothing at the mouth, which seems risky, and the shadow of misogyny hovers.
I like what Bernie Sanders said when Jake Tapper at CNN asked him for a response to the idea that "Wall Street sighs with relief" at Biden picking Harris instead of the more progressive Warren: "My message to our supporters is we have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump, who I view as the most dangerous president in American history. ... And after the Democrats have control of the Senate and the House, and Joe is the president, we’re gonna do all that we can to mobilize people for a progressive agenda."
Neither Biden nor Harris was my first choice for the Democratic nominee, but I was a "vote for the Democrat in November no matter what" person even before the pandemic and the post office shenanigans. Yesterday I got a call from a Biden for President phone-banker. It's not like California will go for Trump, and they know I always vote because that's a matter of public record, so the real reasons for the call were to 1) run up the numbers on the popular vote; 2) ask people to vote a straight Democratic ticket; 3) get confirmed supporters like me to volunteer. The one time I volunteered for a candidate (as opposed to a cause), it was for an ultra-leftie city council candidate who actually thinks what I think. But I'm giving thought to phone-banking or texting or whatever for Biden/Harris despite my lukewarm feelings about their records because our very democracy is at risk.
In the past election, while women of color voted for Clinton in large majority, 53% of white women voted for Trump in spite of every awful thing we knew about him. I don't know why, but it appears that many white women simply wont vote for another white woman. It remains to be seen if they will vote for a black woman. I wont count Trump out yet.
I suspect they'd find themselves able to vote for another white woman if she had an R next to her name. Clinton's problem with white women wasn't that she was a woman it's that she was a Democrat. White women were still far more likely to vote for Clinton than white men were. The fact is, though, that white women have only shown a plurality for the Democratic candidate twice in the last 17 presidential elections.
I've been shocked at the amount of sexism this thread has uncovered and gone unchecked.
Someone up-thread even supposed that women who don't like Kamala are jus' jealous because she's so pretty.
Funny how in all this time no man on the Trump thread has been told he didn't like Trump because he was jealous of all Trump's money and his sexy wife, or because he's taller than them. No one was warned that the shadow of misandry hovered.
Nope, it's just me, who wanted Susan Rice for Veep and would have preferred a woman in Biden's place, who's getting told that I don't like women, or that I think women are all deceitful and manipulative, or I'm just jealous.
And it's because they think that's how women are and how they think about other women.
Not sure if you are referring to my posts. They're not about you.
Nah. I'm usually arguing mostly with Croesos, for some reason I really like him a lot. It's like the people who always beat me at hearts are my favorite ones to play with.
... The fact is, though, that white women have only shown a plurality for the Democratic candidate twice in the last 17 presidential elections.
It is often inferred that this is due to white women prioritizing maintaining white privilege over promoting feminism. I wish there was a more positive spin, but holy cow, 15 presidential elections is sixty years and at least two generations of white women. I'm shocked and disappointed by that statistic. It's now added to my list of electoral anxieties: the electoral college, voter suppression, COVID, killing the USPS, armed election "observers", dirty tricks ....
In the past election, while women of color voted for Clinton in large majority, 53% of white women voted for Trump in spite of every awful thing we knew about him. I don't know why, but it appears that many white women simply wont vote for another white woman. It remains to be seen if they will vote for a black woman. I wont count Trump out yet.
I suspect they'd find themselves able to vote for another white woman if she had an R next to her name. Clinton's problem with white women wasn't that she was a woman it's that she was a Democrat.
Another of her problems was that she is Hillary Clinton. Her baggage has baggage.
In the past election, while women of color voted for Clinton in large majority, 53% of white women voted for Trump in spite of every awful thing we knew about him. I don't know why, but it appears that many white women simply wont vote for another white woman. It remains to be seen if they will vote for a black woman. I wont count Trump out yet.
I suspect they'd find themselves able to vote for another white woman if she had an R next to her name. Clinton's problem with white women wasn't that she was a woman it's that she was a Democrat.
Another of her problems was that she is Hillary Clinton. Her baggage has baggage.
Yes. And let's be honest, if you're hoping to capitalize on your opponent's bragging about groping beauty constestants, the woman who stood by her husband after he was publically accused of rape is probably not the best person to be fronting that strategy.
(And yes yes, I know. Nothing was ever proven about Bill and Juanita Broadrick, whereas Trump cheerfully admitted what he did. But still, if you had to choose someone to lead a feminist-themed campaign against a sexual assailant, the woman married to Bill would not be your first choice.)
I could never understand blaming her for staying married to her husband. I thought it was entirely her business whether she thought the bond they had and their shared interests and history were worth the bad parts.
I could never understand blaming her for staying married to her husband. I thought it was entirely her business whether she thought the bond they had and their shared interests and history were worth the bad parts.
Sure. And by the same token, I don't blame Pat Nixon for staying married to her (never convicted)husband. But if I was planning to produce a series of PSAs about preventing burglary, and someone suggested getting Pat Nixon as the spokesperson, I think I know what I would say to that suggestion.
The "Founders" distrusted the moods of the masses, so originally, e.g., US Senators were elected by state legislatures, and the POTUS was chosen by Electors ... The French Revolution ... the October Revolution ... etc. ... they had a point ..
A couple points on this. First, the original structure of the electoral college was decided by the Committee of Eleven for Postponed Matters. As the name implies this was the group at the Constitutional Convention that handled the things about which the Framers had no clear notions. Some favored letting Congress select the president, others the state governments, still others (including James Madison) favored direct popular election of the president. The electoral college represents not the necessary outgrowth of some grand philosophical design but an ad hoc kludge thrown together to satisfy the political realities of the U.S. in the late 1780s and because no one could agree on anything else.
Second, the electoral college as it currently exists actually amplifies "the moods of the masses", using a winner-take-all system to present a façade of unanimity over what is often a closely divided state-level electorate.
Third, if the results are superior to the popular vote, as you suggest, why is the system used for literally no other American election? Don't state governors, federal congressional representatives, or mayors need to be insulated from "the moods of the masses" as well?
Fourth: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, Donald Trump. These are the four presidents installed into office with not even a plurality of the popular vote*. These men are hardly a stirring endorsement of the superiority of the electoral college over "the moods of the masses", yet you're willing to argue that America had to be saved from the people's choice because Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton would have been so much worse. That seems like a difficult case to make, especially for those last two.
*Going back only as far as 1832, which is the first presidential election for which the popular vote is mostly known.
I don't think that the Electoral College arrangements (left up the individual states, BTW, and not specified in The Constitution) are for the best ... They simply are what they are and are manifestly NOT the same thing as electing the POTUS by popular majority vote ... And again ... the original plan had The Senate elected not by "the masses" but by state legislatures (Constitution Article I, Section 3) ... That was changed by the 17th Amendment, in the early 20th Century ...
Going to the discussion about the electoral college, originally, the electoral college members were not selected by popular vote. It was up to the state legislatures to determine how they were elected. Originally most state legislatures determined who was to represent them in the college, but going into the 19th century the legislatures expanded it to the voting populations of the state.
Going to the discussion about the electoral college, originally, the electoral college members were not selected by popular vote. It was up to the state legislatures to determine how they were elected. Originally most state legislatures determined who was to represent them in the college, but going into the 19th century the legislatures expanded it to the voting populations of the state.
Here in Minnesota, The Electors' names are almost never known by the voters unless they go out of their way to know them ...
Nah. I'm usually arguing mostly with Croesos, for some reason I really like him a lot. It's like the people who always beat me at hearts are my favorite ones to play with.
If anyone is confused about Twilight's posts or her agenda, this is it. She's a street-fighting debater, a what-you-see-is-what-you-get type. She is absolutely not a fan of Donald Trump, and I believe her when she says she'll vote for Biden/Harris despite her misgivings. She is no spy vs spy player.
In the past election, while women of color voted for Clinton in large majority, 53% of white women voted for Trump in spite of every awful thing we knew about him. I don't know why, but it appears that many white women simply wont vote for another white woman. It remains to be seen if they will vote for a black woman. I wont count Trump out yet.
That's a real non sequitur. Perhaps that 53% of white women voting preferred his politics. Perhaps they preferred even him to Hillary Clinton. We don't know from what you've quoted.
The latest Randy Rainbow clip (sorry, can't do links on my phone) seems to show Trump saying about Harris that she is "nastier than Pocahontas". If this is a real quote, as opposed to editing, why is it an insult?
The latest Randy Rainbow clip (sorry, can't do links on my phone) seems to show Trump saying about Harris that she is "nastier than Pocahontas". If this is a real quote, as opposed to editing, why is it an insult?
Well, not having seen the clip, I would assume that "Pocahontas" refers to Elizabeth Warren, and Trump's habit of calling her by that name, to mock her alleged fabrication of First Nations ancestry.
Yes, it’s a real quote and yes, it’s a reference to Elizabeth Warren. And in case it’s lost in trans-Atlantic translation, the use of “nasty” in this context has racist and sexist undertones.
Yes, it’s a real quote and yes, it’s a reference to Elizabeth Warren. And in case it’s lost in trans-Atlantic translation, the use of “nasty” in this context has racist and sexist undertones.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are are lining up their heroes for speaking slots at their convention. One thing you've got to say for Trump -- no matter how foul you believe him to be, he can always go lower than your wildest dreams. Shine, perishing republic.
I don't think that the Electoral College arrangements (left up the individual states, BTW, and not specified in The Constitution) are for the best ... They simply are what they are and are manifestly NOT the same thing as electing the POTUS by popular majority vote ...
I think where we differ is on whether or not this is a good thing. The results seem to indicate that every time the electoral college has over-ridden the popular vote the president selected was the worse choice. (e.g. the electoral college handed the presidency to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and he fucked up to such an extent that the U.S. returned his predecessor, Grover Cleveland, to office; the only time in American history when a defeated president has been returned to office.) At a certain point the question of "does it actually work as intended?" has to be asked.
And again ... the original plan had The Senate elected not by "the masses" but by state legislatures (Constitution Article I, Section 3) ... That was changed by the 17th Amendment, in the early 20th Century ...
Well, not having seen the clip, I would assume that "Pocahontas" refers to Elizabeth Warren, and Trump's habit of calling her by that name, to mock her alleged fabrication of First Nations ancestry.
Almost certainly. I've never understood why most Americans (and the press in particular) is so blasé about the President* routinely calling a sitting Senator a racial slur.
Yes, it’s a real quote and yes, it’s a reference to Elizabeth Warren. And in case it’s lost in trans-Atlantic translation, the use of “nasty” in this context has racist and sexist undertones.
I've been pondering this for several days and can't quite get it. I've run a search, and find it comes up mostly in references to Trump's choice of epithets for women who disagree with him, but nothing more general.
Nick, as a Southerner, probably especially knows how it's used in the South.
Yes, T uses that (among other terms) for women who don't do as he likes. It's been pointed out in various coverage that he especially targets women of color. PBS journalist Yamiche Alcindor is one of them. A search brings up lots of hits.
Generally, ISTM, when a women is called nasty, she *could* simply be mean. But, more likely, it might be a substitute for "b*tch". *That* can simply be for a woman who's especially mean. But it can also be used, particularly by men, for a woman who's seen as "uppity", trying to establish a career in a male-dominated field, etc.
ETA: Oh, and "nasty" can also be for a woman doing something the speaker especially disapproves of, such as sexual behavior.
Yes, it’s a real quote and yes, it’s a reference to Elizabeth Warren. And in case it’s lost in trans-Atlantic translation, the use of “nasty” in this context has racist and sexist undertones.
I've been pondering this for several days and can't quite get it. I've run a search, and find it comes up mostly in references to Trump's choice of epithets for women who disagree with him, but nothing more general.
Yes, but . . . .
It's not a direct racial slur, which is why I said "undertones." It's more akin to a dog whistle.
Aside from the general sexist nature of it—in Trump's view women seem to either be beautiful or nasty, and he's used it of many women, including Hillary Clinton—it plays on and evokes tropes of the angry, unfeminine Black woman. Note that Trump's usage of "nasty" about Harris was in reference to how she spoke to Joe Biden in a primary debate. Trump implied that she was nasty for speaking the way she did to a (white) man, or at least he draw on language quite capable of carrying that implication.
Perhaps these articles might help. (I hope they're not behind a firewall.)
Yes, it’s a real quote and yes, it’s a reference to Elizabeth Warren. And in case it’s lost in trans-Atlantic translation, the use of “nasty” in this context has racist and sexist undertones.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are are lining up their heroes for speaking slots at their convention. One thing you've got to say for Trump -- no matter how foul you believe him to be, he can always go lower than your wildest dreams. Shine, perishing republic.
I think Steve Bannon will be out on bail in time to attend as a "hero" ...
Thank you, Nick. I had seen the Seattle one in the NYTimes, but the other does make it clearer. Especially when linked to "uppity", the use of which I know. (Also use on occasion when it seems appropriate in a British context, to criticise those who exclude the lower classes. The "upper classes" own description is usually "has a sense of entitlement" implying that those they speak of aren't entitled to have it, and thus it is synonymous with "uppity".
Uppity is certainly recognised here as an Americanism for someone who, as we would say, does not know their place. I never had people react that way to me when I was a lawyer, but I have as a disability worker. Funny that.
As for 'nasty woman', I rather like that one turned on his head, as Sam Bee did when she sold t-shirts with the slogan emblazoned on the chest. My wife purchased one for me, but I have never had the courage to wear it in public. I have an idea that a man wearing that t-shirt could be misinterpreted.
Uppity is certainly recognised here as an Americanism for someone who, as we would say, does not know their place. I never had people react that way to me when I was a lawyer, but I have as a disability worker. Funny that.
As for 'nasty woman', I rather like that one turned on his head, as Sam Bee did when she sold t-shirts with the slogan emblazoned on the chest. My wife purchased one for me, but I have never had the courage to wear it in public. I have an idea that a man wearing that t-shirt could be misinterpreted.
She is brilliant, and screens on our SBS, a publicly funded station catering originally to people from migrant backgrounds. With digital, it has expanded its remit to encompass National Indigenous Television, and also Viceland,which AIUI is an 'alternative' American network. Hence, the Beester graces our screens.
In the UK the only indigenous use of the word Uppity I've come across is Mr Uppity, one of the Mr Men. Although he is dark brown, which is unfortunate, everything else about him signifies posh white Tory. (Top hat, monocle, lives in a mansion.)
Well, I use it. But in a context where someone has inexplicably been unpleasant to someone I know, but a possible reason could lie in the unpleasant person regarding the victim as exhibiting behaviour which could be described alternatively in Franglais as being "au dessus de sa gare*". So I would be saying "They must have thought you were being uppity**." I don't go round thinking of others as being it, because I don't go round giving people positions in a pecking order. Unless the unpleasant persons judging others as being uppity is itself being uppity.
*This does not translate correctly as being "above one's station", now does it?
**I think this, and the Franglais, are chosen to put down the unpleasant person's behaviour by trivialising it.
Comments
Someone up-thread even supposed that women who don't like Kamala are jus' jealous because she's so pretty.
Funny how in all this time no man on the Trump thread has been told he didn't like Trump because he was jealous of all Trump's money and his sexy wife, or because he's taller than them. No one was warned that the shadow of misandry hovered.
Nope, it's just me, who wanted Susan Rice for Veep and would have preferred a woman in Biden's place, who's getting told that I don't like women, or that I think women are all deceitful and manipulative, or I'm just jealous.
And it's because they think that's how women are and how they think about other women.
I like the report that in the second debate his crib notes said "Don't Bear Grudges."
O...k...
Haven't been to a DQ in aeons, but I liked them. Especially, IIRC, vanilla ice cream dipped (ahead of time) into a butterscotch coating that dried into a shell.
Twilight, it's just that your posts re KH come across as painful and angry. But IMVHO you seem more interested in trashing KH than in feeling relief that a) Biden has a VP candidate, who's both a woman (!YAY!) and African-American (!YAY!); and b) maybe we just might fire T.
The comment about white women candidates not being considered (IIRC) seemed odd, too. Is that about Elizabeth Warren? I'd cheer for her; but I think she's much better suited to the Senate, and can do more good there.
Or is some of this ongoing grief and rage over Hillary not taking office? Believe me, I've had a lot of that.
You don't have to say, but I think is why some Shipmates are finding your posts confusing.
FWIW. Yay, Dairy Queen!
I like what Bernie Sanders said when Jake Tapper at CNN asked him for a response to the idea that "Wall Street sighs with relief" at Biden picking Harris instead of the more progressive Warren: "My message to our supporters is we have got to do everything that we can to defeat Donald Trump, who I view as the most dangerous president in American history. ... And after the Democrats have control of the Senate and the House, and Joe is the president, we’re gonna do all that we can to mobilize people for a progressive agenda."
Neither Biden nor Harris was my first choice for the Democratic nominee, but I was a "vote for the Democrat in November no matter what" person even before the pandemic and the post office shenanigans. Yesterday I got a call from a Biden for President phone-banker. It's not like California will go for Trump, and they know I always vote because that's a matter of public record, so the real reasons for the call were to 1) run up the numbers on the popular vote; 2) ask people to vote a straight Democratic ticket; 3) get confirmed supporters like me to volunteer. The one time I volunteered for a candidate (as opposed to a cause), it was for an ultra-leftie city council candidate who actually thinks what I think. But I'm giving thought to phone-banking or texting or whatever for Biden/Harris despite my lukewarm feelings about their records because our very democracy is at risk.
I suspect they'd find themselves able to vote for another white woman if she had an R next to her name. Clinton's problem with white women wasn't that she was a woman it's that she was a Democrat. White women were still far more likely to vote for Clinton than white men were. The fact is, though, that white women have only shown a plurality for the Democratic candidate twice in the last 17 presidential elections.
Not sure if you are referring to my posts. They're not about you.
It is often inferred that this is due to white women prioritizing maintaining white privilege over promoting feminism. I wish there was a more positive spin, but holy cow, 15 presidential elections is sixty years and at least two generations of white women. I'm shocked and disappointed by that statistic. It's now added to my list of electoral anxieties: the electoral college, voter suppression, COVID, killing the USPS, armed election "observers", dirty tricks ....
Another of her problems was that she is Hillary Clinton. Her baggage has baggage.
Yes. And let's be honest, if you're hoping to capitalize on your opponent's bragging about groping beauty constestants, the woman who stood by her husband after he was publically accused of rape is probably not the best person to be fronting that strategy.
(And yes yes, I know. Nothing was ever proven about Bill and Juanita Broadrick, whereas Trump cheerfully admitted what he did. But still, if you had to choose someone to lead a feminist-themed campaign against a sexual assailant, the woman married to Bill would not be your first choice.)
Sure. And by the same token, I don't blame Pat Nixon for staying married to her (never convicted)husband. But if I was planning to produce a series of PSAs about preventing burglary, and someone suggested getting Pat Nixon as the spokesperson, I think I know what I would say to that suggestion.
I don't think that the Electoral College arrangements (left up the individual states, BTW, and not specified in The Constitution) are for the best ... They simply are what they are and are manifestly NOT the same thing as electing the POTUS by popular majority vote ... And again ... the original plan had The Senate elected not by "the masses" but by state legislatures (Constitution Article I, Section 3) ... That was changed by the 17th Amendment, in the early 20th Century ...
.
Poll.
Here in Minnesota, The Electors' names are almost never known by the voters unless they go out of their way to know them ...
Is it only me who finds this sentence humorous?
"I'd better have a TicTac ... Sometimes I just start kissing them ..."
If anyone is confused about Twilight's posts or her agenda, this is it. She's a street-fighting debater, a what-you-see-is-what-you-get type. She is absolutely not a fan of Donald Trump, and I believe her when she says she'll vote for Biden/Harris despite her misgivings. She is no spy vs spy player.
:killingme:
That's a real non sequitur. Perhaps that 53% of white women voting preferred his politics. Perhaps they preferred even him to Hillary Clinton. We don't know from what you've quoted.
Well, not having seen the clip, I would assume that "Pocahontas" refers to Elizabeth Warren, and Trump's habit of calling her by that name, to mock her alleged fabrication of First Nations ancestry.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are are lining up their heroes for speaking slots at their convention. One thing you've got to say for Trump -- no matter how foul you believe him to be, he can always go lower than your wildest dreams. Shine, perishing republic.
I think where we differ is on whether or not this is a good thing. The results seem to indicate that every time the electoral college has over-ridden the popular vote the president selected was the worse choice. (e.g. the electoral college handed the presidency to Benjamin Harrison in 1888 and he fucked up to such an extent that the U.S. returned his predecessor, Grover Cleveland, to office; the only time in American history when a defeated president has been returned to office.) At a certain point the question of "does it actually work as intended?" has to be asked.
Again, we seem only to differ on whether a system that allows plutocrats to outright buy Senate seats through bribery is a good thing (or at least better than relying on the popular vote).
Almost certainly. I've never understood why most Americans (and the press in particular) is so blasé about the President* routinely calling a sitting Senator a racial slur.
I've been pondering this for several days and can't quite get it. I've run a search, and find it comes up mostly in references to Trump's choice of epithets for women who disagree with him, but nothing more general.
Nick, as a Southerner, probably especially knows how it's used in the South.
Yes, T uses that (among other terms) for women who don't do as he likes. It's been pointed out in various coverage that he especially targets women of color. PBS journalist Yamiche Alcindor is one of them. A search brings up lots of hits.
Generally, ISTM, when a women is called nasty, she *could* simply be mean. But, more likely, it might be a substitute for "b*tch". *That* can simply be for a woman who's especially mean. But it can also be used, particularly by men, for a woman who's seen as "uppity", trying to establish a career in a male-dominated field, etc.
ETA: Oh, and "nasty" can also be for a woman doing something the speaker especially disapproves of, such as sexual behavior.
It's not a direct racial slur, which is why I said "undertones." It's more akin to a dog whistle.
Aside from the general sexist nature of it—in Trump's view women seem to either be beautiful or nasty, and he's used it of many women, including Hillary Clinton—it plays on and evokes tropes of the angry, unfeminine Black woman. Note that Trump's usage of "nasty" about Harris was in reference to how she spoke to Joe Biden in a primary debate. Trump implied that she was nasty for speaking the way she did to a (white) man, or at least he draw on language quite capable of carrying that implication.
Perhaps these articles might help. (I hope they're not behind a firewall.)
NBC News—Trump deploys the 'angry Black woman' trope against Kamala Harris: In appearances last week, the president described Sen. Kamala Harris as "nasty," "mad" and "angry" — terms with a loaded history for Black women.
The Seattle Times (originally from the NY Times)—Kamala Harris Crystallizes Trump’s View of Women: They’re ‘Nasty’ or Housewives
I think Steve Bannon will be out on bail in time to attend as a "hero" ...
The term, "uppity," is sometimes used to describe certain women, too ... (who decline to just stay at home, barefoot and pregnant, making cookies ...)
As for 'nasty woman', I rather like that one turned on his head, as Sam Bee did when she sold t-shirts with the slogan emblazoned on the chest. My wife purchased one for me, but I have never had the courage to wear it in public. I have an idea that a man wearing that t-shirt could be misinterpreted.
I ADORE Samantha Bee ...
Most recently used in the UK in reference to Megan Markle.
*This does not translate correctly as being "above one's station", now does it?
**I think this, and the Franglais, are chosen to put down the unpleasant person's behaviour by trivialising it.