Trump and the Porn Star

[Ruth]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/17/tru...in-damages-from-porn-star-stormy-daniels.html

I totally believe what she says about Trump. He obviously is not denying he had a relationship with her, possibly while married, and should not be suing her. She may not be a saint but his track record looks as bad as hers IMHO.

 

[Lamb]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/17/tru...in-damages-from-porn-star-stormy-daniels.html

I totally believe what she says about Trump. He obviously is not denying he had a relationship with her, possibly while married, and should not be suing her. She may not be a saint but his track record looks as bad as hers IMHO.

I think the concern should be whether it happened when he was in office.

 

[NewCreation435]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/17/tru...in-damages-from-porn-star-stormy-daniels.html

I totally believe what she says about Trump. He obviously is not denying he had a relationship with her, possibly while married, and should not be suing her. She may not be a saint but his track record looks as bad as hers IMHO.

I believe both her and Karen when they talk about him. Of course, I had a low opinion of him to start with.

 

[psalms 91]

Whether in office or out it says a lot about him and if its true that it was done to cover it up it also raises some legal issues as well where the campaign is concerned and the payment method through third parties.

 

[Albion]

I think the concern should be whether it happened when he was in office.

That's correct, but the other side is rife with hypocrisy, so what else would you expect? They tried the Russia Russia Russia thing, and it is falling flat. Then they tried a number of other approaches...and hes still in office. So, now the gimmick that worked on Herman Cain and Roy Moore is at the top of the list of things to try.

By the way, you notice that the minute both of these men lost their political campaigns, the various women who were recruited to make accusations against them (and supposedly were so outraged that they were demanding justice) never said a peep about it again nor did their handlers.

 

[tango]

That's correct, but the other side is rife with hypocrisy, so what else would you expect? They tried the Russia Russia Russia thing, and it is falling flat. Then they tried a number of other approaches...and hes still in office. So, now the gimmick that worked on Herman Cain and Roy Moore is at the top of the list of things to try.

By the way, you notice that the minute both of these men lost their political campaigns, the various women who were recruited to make accusations against them (and supposedly were so outraged that they were demanding justice) never said a peep about it again nor did their handlers.

This does seem to be par for the course where politics is concerned.

I remember when the issue with Monica Lewinsky was in the news and Bill Clinton's supporters turned the whole issue into a question of whether she really did - that - to him under the desk in the Oval Office, and then played it as little more than "so the pretty girl gave him some" with the associated question of "so what's the big deal?". Actually the issue wasn't whether (or even why) Monica crawled under the desk, it was whether the President lied under oath. But by the time everyone was talking about just what she was doing under the desk the question of whether the President committed perjury was lost.

 

[Ruth]

Whether in office or out it says a lot about him and if its true that it was done to cover it up it also raises some legal issues as well where the campaign is concerned and the payment method through third parties.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Ruth]

I believe both her and Karen when they talk about him. Of course, I had a low opinion of him to start with.

Yes, I believe them, too. I've never been crazy about him.

 

[Ruth]

I think the concern should be whether it happened when he was in office.

The hush money was paid to her while he was a candidate, I believe. I don't agree that the concern should only be whether it happened while he was in office.

 

[Albion]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/17/tru...in-damages-from-porn-star-stormy-daniels.html

I totally believe what she says about Trump. He obviously is not denying he had a relationship with her, possibly while married, and should not be suing her. She may not be a saint but his track record looks as bad as hers IMHO.

If she signed an agreement not to talk about it--and received money for doing so--and now breaks that contract, YOU BET she should be sued!

 

[NewCreation435]

If she signed an agreement not to talk about it--and received money for doing so--and now breaks that contract, YOU BET she should be sued!

Her argument is that he never signed the agreement

 

[Ruth]

Her argument is that he never signed the agreement

That's correct so she should not be sued!:focus:

 

[tango]

My concern would be more about truthfulness. If, as a certain Mr Clinton appears to have done, he had an affair and then lied about it under oath, then that's a serious matter and should be treated as such.

If he had an affair, in office or out of office, it's not good. But it's not as if he's the first businessman or politician to have had an affair and it's also not as if he'll be the last.

If these allegations raised when he was a presidential candidate relate to a time before he was even a candidate then it seems like little more than mud slinging. Most candidates (and I suspect most of us) have things in our past that we'd rather weren't made public. To expect a presidential candidate to have absolutely nothing in his past that could be used against him is unrealistic, to say the least.

I must admit I also have to wonder if there's some other agenda at play here. It seems sex-related scandals are the go-to method to bring down a politician these days and, once the target has been taken down, everything goes quiet.

 

[Albion]

I must admit I also have to wonder if there's some other agenda at play here. It seems sex-related scandals are the go-to method to bring down a politician these days and, once the target has been taken down, everything goes quiet.

You took on the flak but didnt let it keep you from winding up at the real issue, I see. :thumbsup:






.

 

[tango]

Another interesting observation is the hypocrisy on both sides where this sort of thing is concerned. Didn't a certain President Clinton get himself caught up in a few issues like this too?

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Republicans howled about Clinton and don't howl about Trump, while Democrats howl about Trump and didn't howl about Clinton.

 

[Albion]

Another interesting observation is the hypocrisy on both sides where this sort of thing is concerned. Didn't a certain President Clinton get himself caught up in a few issues like this too?

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that Republicans howled about Clinton and don't howl about Trump, while Democrats howl about Trump and didn't howl about Clinton.

Not to excuse either man, but Clinton's offense occurred in the White House and he was guilty of perjury. Nevertheless, 60 Minutes didn't interview any of the several women accusers of Clinton like they did this porn actress, Stormy Wazzername; and the Dem defenders didn't just act like it was no big deal. Instead, they said that it did not matter since he had work to do and we should let him do it.

 

[tango]

Not to excuse either man, but Clinton's offense occurred in the White House and he was guilty of perjury. Nevertheless, 60 Minutes didn't interview any of the several women accusers of Clinton like they did this porn actress, Stormy Wazzername; and the Dem defenders didn't just act like it was no big deal. Instead, they said that it did not matter since he had work to do and we should let him do it.

Sure, the perjury issue is in a totally different league to the affair. I still think one of the cleverest moves made by the Democrats at the time was to shift attention away from the perjury and make it out that people were just jealous that the president "got a piece" in the White House.

Personally I don't see the fact that the acts themselves took place in the White House as particularly relevant, it's just interesting to see people howling about one person's misdeeds while remaining remarkably silent regarding another's near-identical misdeeds.

 

[MennoSota]

We have had some very immoral Presidents over the course of nearly 250 years. Trump has stated that he has no need to repent. One thing I know is that we are all in need of repentance.
As for removal from office. Clinton was not removed for sexual inpropriety in the office. I have no doubt Trump had affairs before being President. So far there is no evidence that he did anything wrong while acting as President.

 

[Albion]

Personally I don't see the fact that the acts themselves took place in the White House as particularly relevant, it's just interesting to see people howling about one person's misdeeds while remaining remarkably silent regarding another's near-identical misdeeds.

Well, it shows a particular sort of depravity, but the real point was that this event took place while the man was President of the United States, unlike the claims made against President Trump.

If we were to check back into the earlier lives of all the men who later became president, it would be interesting to see what we would say about impeaching them on that basis, wouldn't it?

 

[tango]

Well, it shows a particular sort of depravity, but the real point was that this event took place while the man was President of the United States, unlike the claims made against President Trump.

I'm not sure it shows any higher level of depravity just because the man was President at the time he had his affair. If anything that kind of power makes him a lot more attractive to women. My concern is still the issue of whether he lied about it under oath - in many ways just what Monica Lewinsky was doing under the desk is of little interest to me.

If we were to check back into the earlier lives of all the men who later became president, it would be interesting to see what we would say about impeaching them on that basis, wouldn't it?

This is a very good point - people who dig out historical footage of Donald Trump as "proof" that he is racist miss the point that all sorts of things considered not only perfectly normal but widely expected a couple of decades ago are considered racist today. Chances are most of us over the age of about 40-50 have said or done things in the past that would now be considered racially offensive. Given the average age of the occupants of the Capitol Bulding I'd be impressed if you could find any one of them who has never said or done something that by today's standards is considered racist.