What's the big deal about Trump having had an affair with a porn star? Is that all it was? Or was there something relevant to him now being president? This hyper examination of a politician's personal life is stupid and just distracts from the matters that are relevant to their work in office, such as the tariffs.
-
Features
Donald Trump: being President for Life is great
- Thread starter lpetrich
- Start date
ElectEngr
Member
So, when will the House GOP start the repeal process for the 22nd Amendment?
Later,
ElectEnbr
Later,
ElectEnbr
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,987
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
There are few things.
1) Why was she paid off? Trump wasn't expecting to win. Comparisons have been made to the looks of Daniels and Donnie's daughter, Ivanka.
2) How was she paid off? There are likely campaign finance laws involved here, now that we now the lawyer wanted to be paid back.
3) There is no hyper examination over this. That'd be like people faking a video of a woman in Africa that allegedly meant Obama was born in Africa. The payout became public, the porn star is suing over it being noted by the lawyer.
Otherwise, I don't care what fool decided to let that obese walrus insert his 'little donnie' into them.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Well, if the payoff money ultimately came from a fund that couldn't legally be used for hush money, that might be just a teensy bit relevant...
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,665
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
There's the fact that Trump's party lost their ever-loving minds about Clinton having an affair with an intern, and have spent the last several decades presenting themselves as the "family values" party. Their brand was morality and public piety, and now the head of their party is a guy who makes Bill Clinton look saintly.
It might not have been such a big deal if it weren't for the fact that the GOP made this sort of thing a big deal.
Playball40
Veteran Member
ask Anthony Weiner
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,987
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Weiner sext'd with an underaged minor (redundant?). There are no indications that Trump broke any laws fucking a porn star (who looked like his daughter) while on his third wife. Now campaign laws very well could have been broken in paying the porn star off.
Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
You have to admit that's kind of stupid. What's the point of being a rich and powerful government official receiving hundreds of millions in campaign funds in a single election if you can't have sex with porn stars and use the money to cover it up? I mean, do people really believe that government officials need hundreds of millions of dollars to pay their campaigns' volunteer staff and crappy advertisements?
If you have to pay that kind of hush money, something's wrong.
barbos
Contributor
Why do we assume Trump used campaign money to pay Stormy Daniels?
From a campaign finance law perspective, it doesn't matter if it was campaign money or private money.
If there is evidence of him using campaign money to shut her up, then yes, its relevant. If not, I don't see that it is. Weiner's case is a little more legit because he committed a crime (assuming that's a crime there?) and Clinton did what he did while President and while in the Oval Office (unless that's not so? I'm not sure). Trump did his thing years before he was even in politics, so unless he covered it up now with public or campaign money and broke the law, this isn't relevant.
Opoponax
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,384
- Location
- California Central Coast
- Basic Beliefs
- Apathetic Atheist
To my mind (for whatever that's worth), this isn't about Trump himself. Does anyone think that his marriage to his current wife is anything but a contractual arrangement? It's money, security, lifestyle and a child in exchange for arm candy, sex and accompaniment on demand.
It's also not about any campaign finance law that was broken. Whether it was or not is all small potatoes compared to what Trump and the batshit right is doing to the U.S. and the rest of the world. IOW, if it was illegal, throw it on the pile over there with all the rest of the shit.
This is about his evangelical supporters. Yes, the hypocrisy has always been there and it's something that for some reason was ceded to them, thereby requiring non-Republicans to have to try to adhere to unattainable moral standards.
Now though, the whole notion of a "moral majority" is utterly shot to shit. No politician of any party should ever respond to a morality-based question with anything except, "I believe you supported Donald Trump; isn't that true?" That should be followed by a rapidly recited list of 3-5 vile things Trump has done. Then move on.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 45,987
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Well, the cover up is the issue due to the finance of the payout.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
This statement seems to admit that it WOULD be relevant if performed while he was in politics, in office, is that true?
Then it would still be relevant.
Because the voters deserve to know about a history of behavior if the behavior would not be tolerable in office.
If someone abused children several years ago, then got a job at a child care center, that behavior would definitely be relevant to parents, even if it was 'years ago' and 'before he got into child care.' Even if only because greater scrutiny was needed.
Elixir
Made in America
Campaign finance laws extend to expenditures by private parties (e.g.Cohen) if such expenditures were made with the intent of influencing elections (per TeeVee lawyers)... just sayin'.
This "gathering Stormy" thing is not going away any time soon, regardless. Various candidates and office-holders have had their careers derailed by FAR less than adulterous consorting with porn stars. The question is whether there is any possible blight on Trump's character that can have any effect at all on his supporters. They seem to be such forgiving Christian types, and Trump seems to lack any character whatsoever to impugn, so it may not be possible to parlay this (as I'm sure some Democrats would like to do) into an issue that will be reflected at the ballot box (especially if control of our elections is conceded to Russia, as Republicans seem to want).
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
Also, it highlights GOP hypocrisy. Party of family values my lily white ass.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
This country has already had one president-for-life. A lot of people (not me though) still seem to show him high regard, although a constitutional amendment was passed after he died to prevent it from happening again.
lpetrich
Contributor
Wikipedia has
List of Presidents of the United States who died in office -- FDR was one of eight of them. 1841: William Henry Harrison, 1850: Zachary Taylor, 1865: Abraham Lincoln, 1881: James A. Garfield, 1901: William McKinley, 1923: Warren G. Harding, 1945: Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1963: John F. Kennedy
Natural causes: William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren G. Harding, Franklin D. Roosevelt
Assassination: Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, John F. Kennedy
Before FDR, presidents served at most two terms, and sometimes only one, though it was a matter of custom and not law. It was after FDR getting elected four times that the 22nd Amendment was passed, limiting presidents to only two terms. Since then, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George Bush II, and Barack Obama have served a full two terms -- three Republicans and two Democrats.
fast
Contributor
What is the political term to characterize the form of government Kim belongs to?
I bet Trump admires it--even envies it. It's probably not as diluted and watered down as presidency in the US is, in that there is likely less seperation of powers. Of course, there is more to be envious of the US in terms of magnitude and rights of its citizenry, but in other areas, there is little to no respect when in comes in terms of requirements. See, the idea of presidency isn't to rule and make things better. The idea is to serve and make things better. Being a servant for the people is commendable--admirable even, but the position compared to great rulers makes it a laughing stock. Yes, there is more to admire than not about a democracy/republic led by a president in conjunction with checks and balances, but neither Genghis khan of history or Klingons from science fiction could hold their heads up high as a servant. Power is a strange thing in our world. The whole mindset incorporates civility. Where is the barbarianism? You want free speech, fine, say what you will against the commoners, but if you don't hold the leader of our nation above the law and worship him as if your life depended on it, then you have nothing but a democracy making for a better world. I don't see that as being envious-worthy to someone who would rather rule by fire. I bet, to Trump, presidency for life would be an achievement should he be elected for it, yet it would be bitter sweet knowing that he would then merely be the leader of the most watered down deluded form of government with only a kind of power (though magnificent) that fails to give him free reign to be a true dictator. Isn't Kim closer to that than Trump? If Kim wants to silence one of his people's, bam, done! Trump can't even get away with blaming victims of a hurricane as bringing the devastation upon themselves. He's a servant. For people. With expectations. That if not met results in severe ridicule and bad mouthing. A ruler has a kind of power that can squash that. A president, well, not even the power with such magnitude as is with the US can manage such a feat. A true borderline narcisist with potential for sociopathic behavior yet who still has the good of the country in his eyes cannot possibly regard democracy as being the best form of government by a ruler for life.
I bet Trump admires it--even envies it. It's probably not as diluted and watered down as presidency in the US is, in that there is likely less seperation of powers. Of course, there is more to be envious of the US in terms of magnitude and rights of its citizenry, but in other areas, there is little to no respect when in comes in terms of requirements. See, the idea of presidency isn't to rule and make things better. The idea is to serve and make things better. Being a servant for the people is commendable--admirable even, but the position compared to great rulers makes it a laughing stock. Yes, there is more to admire than not about a democracy/republic led by a president in conjunction with checks and balances, but neither Genghis khan of history or Klingons from science fiction could hold their heads up high as a servant. Power is a strange thing in our world. The whole mindset incorporates civility. Where is the barbarianism? You want free speech, fine, say what you will against the commoners, but if you don't hold the leader of our nation above the law and worship him as if your life depended on it, then you have nothing but a democracy making for a better world. I don't see that as being envious-worthy to someone who would rather rule by fire. I bet, to Trump, presidency for life would be an achievement should he be elected for it, yet it would be bitter sweet knowing that he would then merely be the leader of the most watered down deluded form of government with only a kind of power (though magnificent) that fails to give him free reign to be a true dictator. Isn't Kim closer to that than Trump? If Kim wants to silence one of his people's, bam, done! Trump can't even get away with blaming victims of a hurricane as bringing the devastation upon themselves. He's a servant. For people. With expectations. That if not met results in severe ridicule and bad mouthing. A ruler has a kind of power that can squash that. A president, well, not even the power with such magnitude as is with the US can manage such a feat. A true borderline narcisist with potential for sociopathic behavior yet who still has the good of the country in his eyes cannot possibly regard democracy as being the best form of government by a ruler for life.