Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
Zonkerbl wrote:I think the current scandal is evidence that the abuse allegations are something Porter wouldn’t want to have become public and thus made him susceptible to blackmail. I admit it’s effed up though. I have a top secret clearance and I’ve done all sorts of stupid ****.
closg00 wrote:TGW wrote:closg00 wrote:
Yeah-right, he paid out of his own pocket. Let's play can you imagine if Obama did it
This is just proof that the evangelical right are a bunch of hypocrites. People like whats her name in Minnesota talk about how Trump is a "man of God" and that now that he's accepted God in his life as President, everything he's done beforehand doesn't count. As a person who is deeply religious, those people truly disgust me with their hypocrisy.
BTW, this sleaze ball Cohen, is mentioned 15 times in the Steele Dossier, he does all of Donald's dirty work, he holds all of the secrets.
Doug_Blew wrote:closg00 wrote:TGW wrote:
This is just proof that the evangelical right are a bunch of hypocrites. People like whats her name in Minnesota talk about how Trump is a "man of God" and that now that he's accepted God in his life as President, everything he's done beforehand doesn't count. As a person who is deeply religious, those people truly disgust me with their hypocrisy.
BTW, this sleaze ball Cohen, is mentioned 15 times in the Steele Dossier, he does all of Donald's dirty work, he holds all of the secrets.
In all fairness, who doesn't have a lawyer that has paid off a stripper for them?
gtn130 wrote:Guys, Nate isn't arguing in good faith. He's trying to misleading people.
nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:Guys, Nate isn't arguing in good faith. He's trying to misleading people.
Why are you so concerned about others hearing what I have to say?
TGW wrote:closg00 wrote:
Yeah-right, he paid out of his own pocket. Let's play can you imagine if Obama did it
This is just proof that the evangelical right are a bunch of hypocrites. People like whats her name in Minnesota talk about how Trump is a "man of God" and that now that he's accepted God in his life as President, everything he's done beforehand doesn't count. As a person who is deeply religious, those people truly disgust me with their hypocrisy.
Ruzious wrote:And we cannot have a President is susceptible to bribes. If nothing happened between Trump and the porn star, then the transaction was a bribe to keep her quiet. Why would she be paid off while the other more than dozen women we know of - not get paid off?
nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:And we cannot have a President is susceptible to bribes. If nothing happened between Trump and the porn star, then the transaction was a bribe to keep her quiet. Why would she be paid off while the other more than dozen women we know of - not get paid off?
Oh noes! We might have a politician with skeletons in his closet!
We have campaigns and elections for a reason. The public understood that Trump was no angel and elected him anyway. Use in the 2020 campaign if you like, but you can't apply a "susceptible to bribes" standard to every politician after being elected or else you will have a tyranny of the Deep State. The FBI will have the power to pick and control every candidate by choosing or not choosing to uncover dirt.
Ruzious wrote:What do you call a 130,000 payoff to a porn star? On your accounting records, how would you classify it?
nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:And we cannot have a President is susceptible to bribes. If nothing happened between Trump and the porn star, then the transaction was a bribe to keep her quiet. Why would she be paid off while the other more than dozen women we know of - not get paid off?
Oh noes! We might have a politician with skeletons in his closet!
We have campaigns and elections for a reason. The public understood that Trump was no angel and elected him anyway. Use in the 2020 campaign if you like, but you can't apply a "susceptible to bribes" standard to every politician after being elected or else you will have a tyranny of the Deep State. The FBI will have the power to pick and control every candidate by choosing or not choosing to uncover dirt.
gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:And we cannot have a President is susceptible to bribes. If nothing happened between Trump and the porn star, then the transaction was a bribe to keep her quiet. Why would she be paid off while the other more than dozen women we know of - not get paid off?
Oh noes! We might have a politician with skeletons in his closet!
We have campaigns and elections for a reason. The public understood that Trump was no angel and elected him anyway. Use in the 2020 campaign if you like, but you can't apply a "susceptible to bribes" standard to every politician after being elected or else you will have a tyranny of the Deep State. The FBI will have the power to pick and control every candidate by choosing or not choosing to uncover dirt.
People were definitely misled.
Kanyewest wrote:Ruzious wrote:What do you call a 130,000 payoff to a porn star? On your accounting records, how would you classify it?
Apparently, it is against the campaign finance laws. No big deal.
Stormy Daniels Payment May Be Illegal, Even If It Came From Trump’s Lawyer
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/trump-lawyers-stormy-daniels-payoff-may-still-be-illegal.html
Ruzious wrote:nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:And we cannot have a President is susceptible to bribes. If nothing happened between Trump and the porn star, then the transaction was a bribe to keep her quiet. Why would she be paid off while the other more than dozen women we know of - not get paid off?
Oh noes! We might have a politician with skeletons in his closet!
We have campaigns and elections for a reason. The public understood that Trump was no angel and elected him anyway. Use in the 2020 campaign if you like, but you can't apply a "susceptible to bribes" standard to every politician after being elected or else you will have a tyranny of the Deep State. The FBI will have the power to pick and control every candidate by choosing or not choosing to uncover dirt.
What do you call a 130,000 payoff to a porn star? On your accounting records, how would you classify it?
Ruzious wrote:nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:And we cannot have a President is susceptible to bribes. If nothing happened between Trump and the porn star, then the transaction was a bribe to keep her quiet. Why would she be paid off while the other more than dozen women we know of - not get paid off?
Oh noes! We might have a politician with skeletons in his closet!
We have campaigns and elections for a reason. The public understood that Trump was no angel and elected him anyway. Use in the 2020 campaign if you like, but you can't apply a "susceptible to bribes" standard to every politician after being elected or else you will have a tyranny of the Deep State. The FBI will have the power to pick and control every candidate by choosing or not choosing to uncover dirt.
What do you call a 130,000 payoff to a porn star? On your accounting records, how would you classify it?
nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:Oh noes! We might have a politician with skeletons in his closet!
We have campaigns and elections for a reason. The public understood that Trump was no angel and elected him anyway. Use in the 2020 campaign if you like, but you can't apply a "susceptible to bribes" standard to every politician after being elected or else you will have a tyranny of the Deep State. The FBI will have the power to pick and control every candidate by choosing or not choosing to uncover dirt.
People were definitely misled.
It doesn't matter. The public is misled by virtually every politician. It is why even minor scandals are such big news. For most politicians, if you lose the trust of the people based on a minor scandal, it will be easier for the people to assume you are untrustworthy and may have done even worse things. This is why the drunk driving October surprise on W almost cost him the election.
On the other hand, there are some politicians who are so well understood to be scoundrels, that the public accepts it and doesn't care much about minor skeletons in their closet. Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump are good examples of this.
On October 31, 2016, The New York Times published an article by Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers indicating that intelligence agencies believed that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was not aimed at electing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.[It was subsequently revealed that multiple United States intelligence agencies were conducting an investigation at the time into possible covert aid from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign. This led to criticism of Times' coverage of the election, and speculation that the Times reporting, and the Lichtblau article in particular, contributed to Trump's victory. On January 20, 2017, the Times published an article by the public editor acknowledging that the Times staff, including the editors and Lichtblau, had access to materials and details indicating that the Russian interference was aimed at electing Donald Trump, contradicting the October 31 article, and stating that "a strong case can be made that the Times was too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had"
nate33 wrote:Ruzious wrote:nate33 wrote:Oh noes! We might have a politician with skeletons in his closet!
We have campaigns and elections for a reason. The public understood that Trump was no angel and elected him anyway. Use in the 2020 campaign if you like, but you can't apply a "susceptible to bribes" standard to every politician after being elected or else you will have a tyranny of the Deep State. The FBI will have the power to pick and control every candidate by choosing or not choosing to uncover dirt.
What do you call a 130,000 payoff to a porn star? On your accounting records, how would you classify it?
You are wasting your time. There is nothing here other than the likelihood that Trump cheated on his wife. I don't think many are shocked or surprised by this.
nate33 wrote:I will say it again and again. We have elections for a reason. Trump won it. Stop trying to overturn this fact. Get a good candidate and beat him in 2020. Use this dirt against him if you like.
gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:
People were definitely misled.
It doesn't matter. The public is misled by virtually every politician. It is why even minor scandals are such big news. For most politicians, if you lose the trust of the people based on a minor scandal, it will be easier for the people to assume you are untrustworthy and may have done even worse things. This is why the drunk driving October surprise on W almost cost him the election.
On the other hand, there are some politicians who are so well understood to be scoundrels, that the public accepts it and doesn't care much about minor skeletons in their closet. Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump are good examples of this.
What??? I'm showing you an example of not only the NYT not reporting on a major Trump scandal, but actually reporting that the scandal doesn't even exist!On October 31, 2016, The New York Times published an article by Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers indicating that intelligence agencies believed that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was not aimed at electing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.[It was subsequently revealed that multiple United States intelligence agencies were conducting an investigation at the time into possible covert aid from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign. This led to criticism of Times' coverage of the election, and speculation that the Times reporting, and the Lichtblau article in particular, contributed to Trump's victory. On January 20, 2017, the Times published an article by the public editor acknowledging that the Times staff, including the editors and Lichtblau, had access to materials and details indicating that the Russian interference was aimed at electing Donald Trump, contradicting the October 31 article, and stating that "a strong case can be made that the Times was too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had"
nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:It doesn't matter. The public is misled by virtually every politician. It is why even minor scandals are such big news. For most politicians, if you lose the trust of the people based on a minor scandal, it will be easier for the people to assume you are untrustworthy and may have done even worse things. This is why the drunk driving October surprise on W almost cost him the election.
On the other hand, there are some politicians who are so well understood to be scoundrels, that the public accepts it and doesn't care much about minor skeletons in their closet. Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump are good examples of this.
What??? I'm showing you an example of not only the NYT not reporting on a major Trump scandal, but actually reporting that the scandal doesn't even exist!On October 31, 2016, The New York Times published an article by Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers indicating that intelligence agencies believed that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was not aimed at electing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.[It was subsequently revealed that multiple United States intelligence agencies were conducting an investigation at the time into possible covert aid from the Kremlin to the Trump campaign. This led to criticism of Times' coverage of the election, and speculation that the Times reporting, and the Lichtblau article in particular, contributed to Trump's victory. On January 20, 2017, the Times published an article by the public editor acknowledging that the Times staff, including the editors and Lichtblau, had access to materials and details indicating that the Russian interference was aimed at electing Donald Trump, contradicting the October 31 article, and stating that "a strong case can be made that the Times was too timid in its decisions not to publish the material it had"
Please, tell me when you find any evidence of Trump coordinating with the Russia campaign in a way that materially influenced the election. Until then, I'm ignoring you.
It doesn't surprise me that Russia preferred Trump over Clinton. It doesn't surprise me that Trump was interested in dirt about Clinton. But it's not a story until Russia gave material aid to Trump in a quid pro quo.