• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump Offering Stormy Hush $$$$$$

That's stupid. She didn't keep her mouth shut the first time. He should demand a refund instead.
 
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?
 
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent.
Click to expand...
Who's mantra was that?
Certainly not the right wing Republicans.

They were very clear about the need to initiate a congressional investigation into Bill cheating on Hillary. We got an Impeachment Circus that went on and on. You may not remember that, but I do.
Now, the right wing mantra is "So what if a president fucks anyone who can't run away fast enough? He is my president!"
Tom
 
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?
Click to expand...
My opinion is that the focus was on the fact that he paid her to keep her mouth shut, claimed he did not fuck her, and apparently paid her to keep her mouth shut about his not fucking her if you believe his statement that he in fact did not fuck her. He then got indicted for charging off the $ 130,000.00 as a business expense.

If he has just fucked her and left the rest out he would have been better off.

BTW Clinton and Monica Lewinsky got plenty of press.

If she had not been fucking Clinton's dick you would not recognize her name.
 
Actually, the OFFICIAL official Trump camp response (as opposed to just official) is, "The President denies he had sexual relations with Ms. Daniels." You know, like the Christian belief in the virgin birth. Never mind that it's on the order of a fairy tale. Keep with the story.
 
TomC said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent.
Click to expand...
Who's mantra was that?
Certainly not the right wing Republicans.

They were very clear about the need to initiate a congressional investigation into Bill cheating on Hillary. We got an Impeachment Circus that went on and on. You may not remember that, but I do.
Now, the right wing mantra is "So what if a president fucks anyone who can't run away fast enough? He is my president!"
Tom
Click to expand...
No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative. I certainly did not agree with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was a huge waste of time and money and took attention away from the job of running the country. It seems now the Democrats are interested in where the POTUS chooses to put his dick.

Both Clinton and Trump lied about their extramarital affair, with Clinton's lie more substantially proven via "the blue dress stain", whereas the Trump/Stormy affair is more of a "he said/she said", although I am more inclined to believe Stormy's version of events, given Trump's horndog nature. Both paid big $$$ to make their sexual dalliances go away. Clinton settled with Paula Jones for $850,000.
 
Last edited:
"Actually, the OFFICIAL official Trump camp response (as opposed to just official) is, "The President denies he had sexual relations with Ms. Daniels." You know, like the Christian belief in the virgin birth. Never mind that it's on the order of a fairy tale. Keep with the story."

When I was a teenage in the event that my girlfriend got pregnant I was planning on using virgin birth as a defense.
 
thebeave said:
TomC said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent.
Click to expand...
Who's mantra was that?
Certainly not the right wing Republicans.

They were very clear about the need to initiate a congressional investigation into Bill cheating on Hillary. We got an Impeachment Circus that went on and on. You may not remember that, but I do.
Now, the right wing mantra is "So what if a president fucks anyone who can't run away fast enough? He is my president!"
Tom
Click to expand...
No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative. I certainly did not agree with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was a huge waste of time and money and took attention away from the job of running the country. It seems now the Democrats are interested in where the POTUS chooses to put his dick.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it was the Democrats?
Tom
 
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?
Click to expand...
THe right wing was full of it and all that crap about honoe in the White House for years was a complete dumpster full of shit.

We had to listen to the right wing go on and on about it as Gingrich cheated on his wife and while the guy who'd replace him for a day or two did the same.

The left wing didn't make puritanical bullshit a ballot issue, that was the right wing.
 
TomC said:
thebeave said:
TomC said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent.
Click to expand...
Who's mantra was that?
Certainly not the right wing Republicans.

They were very clear about the need to initiate a congressional investigation into Bill cheating on Hillary. We got an Impeachment Circus that went on and on. You may not remember that, but I do.
Now, the right wing mantra is "So what if a president fucks anyone who can't run away fast enough? He is my president!"
Tom
Click to expand...
No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative. I certainly did not agree with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was a huge waste of time and money and took attention away from the job of running the country. It seems now the Democrats are interested in where the POTUS chooses to put his dick.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it was the Democrats?
Tom
Click to expand...
That's how I remember it. The Republicans have generally had a high and mighty Christian family values attitude about sexual dalliances (despite being hypocrits IRL), and most seemed to hate Clinton. The Democrats are more loose with sexual mores and didn't want the impeachment. Doesn't that make sense?
 
My question would be what could Daniels possibly have that'd be worth more money that wouldn't have come out by now or would actually harm Trump. I'm more inclined to think it isn't true.
 
thebeave said:
TomC said:
thebeave said:
TomC said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent.
Click to expand...
Who's mantra was that?
Certainly not the right wing Republicans.

They were very clear about the need to initiate a congressional investigation into Bill cheating on Hillary. We got an Impeachment Circus that went on and on. You may not remember that, but I do.
Now, the right wing mantra is "So what if a president fucks anyone who can't run away fast enough? He is my president!"
Tom
Click to expand...
No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative. I certainly did not agree with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was a huge waste of time and money and took attention away from the job of running the country. It seems now the Democrats are interested in where the POTUS chooses to put his dick.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it was the Democrats?
Tom
Click to expand...
That's how I remember it. The Republicans have generally had a high and mighty Christian family values attitude about sexual dalliances (despite being hypocrits IRL), and most seemed to hate Clinton. The Democrats are more loose with sexual mores and didn't want the impeachment. Doesn't that make sense?
Click to expand...

Here's what you posted,
"No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative."

I don't think it was the Democrats pushing the Impeachment Circus narrative.
Tom
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?
Click to expand...
THe right wing was full of it and all that crap about honoe in the White House for years was a complete dumpster full of shit.

We had to listen to the right wing go on and on about it as Gingrich cheated on his wife and while the guy who'd replace him for a day or two did the same.

The left wing didn't make puritanical bullshit a ballot issue, that was the right wing.
Click to expand...
I know, that's been my point. So why does the left wing make hay out of Trump's sexual affair with Stormy in 2024?
 
TomC said:
thebeave said:
TomC said:
thebeave said:
TomC said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent.
Click to expand...
Who's mantra was that?
Certainly not the right wing Republicans.

They were very clear about the need to initiate a congressional investigation into Bill cheating on Hillary. We got an Impeachment Circus that went on and on. You may not remember that, but I do.
Now, the right wing mantra is "So what if a president fucks anyone who can't run away fast enough? He is my president!"
Tom
Click to expand...
No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative. I certainly did not agree with the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was a huge waste of time and money and took attention away from the job of running the country. It seems now the Democrats are interested in where the POTUS chooses to put his dick.
Click to expand...
What makes you think it was the Democrats?
Tom
Click to expand...
That's how I remember it. The Republicans have generally had a high and mighty Christian family values attitude about sexual dalliances (despite being hypocrits IRL), and most seemed to hate Clinton. The Democrats are more loose with sexual mores and didn't want the impeachment. Doesn't that make sense?
Click to expand...

Here's what you posted,
"No it was not the Repubs, it was the Democrats who were pushing that narrative."

I don't think it was the Democrats pushing the Impeachment Circus narrative.
Tom
Click to expand...
There is a misunderstanding. I was saying the Dems were pushing the narrative that Clinton's sex life was irrelevant. The Repubs were making it a big deal.
 
thebeave said:
I know, that's been my point. So why does the left wing make hay out of Trump's sexual affair with Stormy in 2024?
Click to expand...
To distract from the fact that they are bereft of any meaningful policies I would wager.

Interviewer: VP Harris, what are your plans to reduce inflation?

VP Harris: Look, I grew up in a middle class neighborhood with nice lawns and Trump fucked an adult entertainer and gave her money not to say anything about it.
 
thebeave said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?
Click to expand...
THe right wing was full of it and all that crap about honoe in the White House for years was a complete dumpster full of shit.

We had to listen to the right wing go on and on about it as Gingrich cheated on his wife and while the guy who'd replace him for a day or two did the same.

The left wing didn't make puritanical bullshit a ballot issue, that was the right wing.
Click to expand...
I know, that's been my point. So why does the left wing make hay out of Trump's sexual affair with Stormy in 2024?
Click to expand...
Trump made the hay by paying hush money and then stiffing his henchman
 
Derec said:
That's stupid. She didn't keep her mouth shut the first time. He should demand a refund instead.
Click to expand...

He shouldn't demand anything. He should go hide somewhere safe, like Putin's Russia and hang out with oligarchs. Maybe he could bring Musk along too as a prop.
 
thebeave said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
thebeave said:
I remember back in the Bill Clinton horndog days, the mantra was that a president's sexual dalliances was not deemed relevent. Which I was OK with. Apparently that has changed somewhere along the lines. When did it change and why?
Click to expand...
THe right wing was full of it and all that crap about honoe in the White House for years was a complete dumpster full of shit.

We had to listen to the right wing go on and on about it as Gingrich cheated on his wife and while the guy who'd replace him for a day or two did the same.

The left wing didn't make puritanical bullshit a ballot issue, that was the right wing.
Click to expand...
I know, that's been my point. So why does the left wing make hay out of Trump's sexual affair with Stormy in 2024?
Click to expand...
Not seeing much hay being made. Are we supposed to really believe you hadn't noticed the dozens of other issues people on here are having wuth Trump or do you just have that many on ignore?

The only issue with more money for Daniels would be curiosity as to what it could possibly even be worth paying to keep quiet. She could have had him pay to abort his child and it wouldn't move the election in any way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom