U.S. Politics: Girthers Vs. Anti-Girthers

[LongRider]

I read the interview of Daniels (there is a link to it in the Mother Jones article I posted on a few pages back) and she did not mock Trump. That is coming from folks (like me) who read it.

The hush money is a definite issue and so is adultry which has brought down other presidential candidates; for instance John Edwards. 

Edwards and others have taken the hits, but Trump gets a pass because of the payoff.  I don't give a shit about how his marriage works, but paying out hush money, while not illegal, is certainly distasteful, and since he is the President, should come to light. 

[Jace, Extat]

Jace only cares if he paid her with campaign funds that he loaned himself.

That's a crime

[Dr. Pepper]

5 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Um, yeah, people did come to a conclusion.  That he's a cheating cheater who cheats and then spends ridiculous amounts of money to keep it quiet so it can seem like he has a perfectly fine monogamous relationship with his wife.  

It was you who started getting defensive on this about how 'we don't know what they've agreed to in their relationship'.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say make the logical conclusion and then say we can't make those conclusions because there's possible information we don't know.

Oh ffs. There are two issues here.  One issue is that people are trying to paint Melania as the jaded mother who was home alone with her son when her husband was cheating.  These people have literally no idea what their marriage entails.  It all comes from monogamy bias.  

The other issue is the NDA and the money that came with it.  People are trying to act like the fact that it exists means that there is something nefarious there.  Like maybe rape!  Or something sinister.  They completely ignore the fact that it came years after the affair, years after the interview with InTouch and coincides with a presidential campaign where stupid idiots would think that a sexual affair with someone other than his legal wife matters more than, I don't know, instigating violence, talking about murdering others, actual sexual assault and so on.  Liberals look like stupid idiots and intolerant shitbrains for trying to make an issue of this.  It completely proves the point of why the NDA was needed to begin with, because y'all get more up in arms about a consensual affair than things like rape or bigotry.

4 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

I read the interview of Daniels (there is a link to it in the Mother Jones article I posted on a few pages back) and she did not mock Trump. That is coming from folks (like me) who read it.

The hush money is a definite issue and so is adultry which has brought down other presidential candidates; for instance John Edwards. 

Edwards and others have taken the hits, but Trump gets a pass because of the payoff.  I don't give a shit about how his marriage works, but paying out hush money, while not illegal, is certainly distasteful, and since he is the President, should come to light. 

The interview doesn't paint Trump in a great light.  I've also read it.  That's how I know these things claiming that it might have been non consensual are full of shit.  

Adultery is an issue for those with monogamy bias.  The only time the public needs to be concerned with someone's relationship is when it involves illegal or unethical activity.  Such as a governor blackmailing a woman.  Other than that, it's of no concern to the public what occurs in a marriage.  Whether other people have been brought down by having affairs doesn't matter.  It was wrong then, it would be wrong now.  We need to stay out of people's marriages.  The fact that he had to pay out for a NDA is more indicative of the puritanical public than of Trump.  

 

[Jace, Extat]

Bill Cassidy just quoted Bismark like five times in an interview with BRook Baldwin.

That's weird.

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The other issue is the NDA and the money that came with it.  People are trying to act like the fact that it exists means that there is something nefarious there.  Like maybe rape!  Or something sinister.  They completely ignore the fact that it came years after the affair, years after the interview with InTouch and coincides with a presidential campaign where stupid idiots would think that a sexual affair with someone other than his legal wife matters more than, I don't know, instigating violence, talking about murdering others, actual sexual assault and so on.  Liberals look like stupid idiots and intolerant shitbrains for trying to make an issue of this.  It completely proves the point of why the NDA was needed to begin with, because y'all get more up in arms about a consensual affair than things like rape or bigotry.

The interview doesn't paint Trump in a great light.  I've also read it.  That's how I know these things claiming that it might have been non consensual are full of shit.  

Adultery is an issue for those with monogamy bias.  The only time the public needs to be concerned with someone's relationship is when it involves illegal or unethical activity.  Such as a governor blackmailing a woman.  Other than that, it's of no concern to the public what occurs in a marriage.  Whether other people have been brought down by having affairs doesn't matter.  It was wrong then, it would be wrong now.  We need to stay out of people's marriages.  The fact that he had to pay out for a NDA is more indicative of the puritanical public than of Trump.  

Do we know for sure that Daniels revealed the extent of what she was paid for years earlier in In Touch?   That's kind of been the question for me-- I dgaf about monogamy or a consensual affair, but why the money?  An affair between two consenting adults, one of whom constantly brags about getting into bed with his friends' wives and such, doesn't seem that newsworthy-- I think that might be why a lot of people are stuck on this; if that's all it is why pay her, the logic goes.  Was the newsworthiness simply that he's bad in the sack?  If everything had already been out there in the gossip rag, why would it be worth it to pay her-  just not to stir it up at that particular time in the campaign?

When the hush money news broke, I wasn't thinking something non-consensual had occurred.  I was actually thinking more along the lines of Trump telling her to get an abortion or something like that-- something directly related to his campaign/ alleged platform.

[IamMe90]

41 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Do we know for sure that Daniels revealed the extent of what she was paid for years earlier in In Touch?   That's kind of been the question for me-- I dgaf about monogamy or a consensual affair, but why the money?  An affair between two consenting adults, one of whom constantly brags about getting into bed with his friends' wives and such, doesn't seem that newsworthy-- I think that might be why a lot of people are stuck on this; if that's all it is why pay her, the logic goes. 

Because many, many political figures have been brought down by just "an affair between two consenting adults" before, and Trump was about to campaign for the highest office in the country? Like, this is so mindbogglingly apparent I don't know how it requires explanation. This NDA was drafted before any of the huge scandals like pussygate broke, and before Trump could possibly know that he'd basically be free of any impunity from such "mundane" scandals as affairs in his political aspirations. 

I'm agreeing with DP on this one. This story ranks so low on Trump's vile-o-meter of conduct that I scant see how it matters. If multiple, actual sexual assault/rape allegations aren't going to bring him down, I don't see why this would. If it does, it's only because people are stupid and like juicy/gossipy headlines, not because the story is any substantively worse than his other conduct. 

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

Do we know for sure that Daniels revealed the extent of what she was paid for years earlier in In Touch?   That's kind of been the question for me-- I dgaf about monogamy or a consensual affair, but why the money?  An affair between two consenting adults, one of whom constantly brags about getting into bed with his friends' wives and such, doesn't seem that newsworthy-- I think that might be why a lot of people are stuck on this; if that's all it is why pay her, the logic goes.  Was the newsworthiness simply that he's bad in the sack?  If everything had already been out there in the gossip rag, why would it be worth it to pay her-  just not to stir it up at that particular time in the campaign?

When the hush money news broke, I wasn't thinking something non-consensual had occurred.  I was actually thinking more along the lines of Trump telling her to get an abortion or something like that-- something directly related to his campaign/ alleged platform.

The money seems clear.  He was undertaking a presidential campaign.  I'm willing to bet all my money that his team probably asked him for a bunch of names and went around putting out potential fires.  Probably lots of NDAs were signed.  The money Daniels was paid is sort of chump change if it was something nefarious, don't you think?   

The more curious thing to me is why InTouch didn't publish their interview when they made it.  Perhaps it wasn't newsworthy then.  If that's the case, then why not publish when Trump announced his campaign or anytime between then and the election.  It seems pretty shady to me that InTouch sat on this thing for years for no apparent reason.  There's no reason to think Daniels hadn't moved on from that portion of her life, she might have agreed to the interview in 2011 but who's to say that she agrees in 2018 that it should be published?  It's pretty nasty, imo.  

[Dr. Pepper]

I realize that I have some dates wrong.  I had thought the NDA came in Oct 2015, but it was actually Oct 2016, really soon before the election.  As we all recall, the polls fluctuated constantly and any news had the power to sway things one way or the other.  Daniels was apparently in talks to discuss the affair to several news sources before she was presented with the NDA.  Considering it was allegedly singed that close to the election, there really is little doubt about the reason why.  I'm sure Trump's team considered the fact that the election was so close that a bit of change was worth it to stop that story from happening so close to election day.  

 

[HoodedCrow]

I’m more concerned about Trump going on TV recently and saying lies, one after the other about the immigration “lottery”, including very bogus metaphors for simpletons. I don’t think any of his dozen or so assertions was true.

I’m a legal immigrant, and I can assure you they went over us with a fine toothed comb, and even though we are as clean as you get, with marketable skills and education, a job upon arrival, Native English speakers, it took a lawyers, proofs, fingerprints, blood tests, and many years. The immigration service is not kidding around.

There are strict regulations for sponsoring very close relatives, and Trump and Steven Miller lied about that, too.

Once, though, a police man on a bicycle waggled his finger at me for jay walking.:) Oh, and I wasn’t immune to chicken pox. The shame of it all.

I enjoyed learning more about American history, so now I can tell better when the BS flies.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But has it sort of worked, even if in an unintended way? If it wasn't for the rhetoric coming from the USA, would North and South Korea be marching under a unified flag at the winter Olympics this year? I don't think it's an accident that RoK and DPRK made this arrangement at this time. Though I do think it's an accident  that US behavior has facilitated this particular move. It's an improvement in Korean Peninsula relations, but possibly not of a kind that the Trump Admin would necessarily have wanted to see.

Maybe, maybe not, but it's not like they haven't marched together before. I believe it was only a decade ago that they were still doing it. Anyways, one could argue that Trump's behavior is actually helping DPRK achieve it's central goal of reunification. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's been a stressful few days in politics. So on a lighter note I have to ask, why is nobody talking about Trump's galeophobia?

[LongRider]

His lies and the lies from his Administration about immigrants are specious and dangerous it's true, but it still grates me that he can get away with adultery when other presidents and pres candidates have not.  The double standard is what is really bothering me.  Like it or not, monogamy for elected figures in gov't have been seen as part of their 'character' until 45 came along.  What, is his adulteries and hush monies A OK as long he's willing to bellow out about hating the brown and the foreign?  I guess that's it, as his base and the gutless R MoC's dgaf as long as they can have him sign their bills.  

 

 

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's been a stressful few days in politics. So on a lighter note I have to ask, why is nobody talking about Trump's galeophobia?

Predators just don't like other predators.   

[Dr. Pepper]

4 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

His lies and the lies from his Administration about immigrants are specious and dangerous it's true, but it still grates me that he can get away with adultery when other presidents and pres candidates have not.  The double standard is what is really bothering me.  Like it or not, monogamy for elected figures in gov't have been seen as part of their 'character' until 45 came along.  What, is his adulteries and hush monies A OK as long he's willing to bellow out about hating the brown and the foreign?  I guess that's it, as his base and the gutless R MoC's dgaf as long as they can have him sign their bills.  

 

 

But why on earth are you surprised about this?  There's not a single person in the world who could have possibly believed that Trump was monogamous with his wives.  

This might be a good time for so called liberals to openly embrace non monogamous relationships.  It should no longer be a requirement that politicians practice monogamy nor should any acts of adultery - whether approved by the spouse or not- be relevant. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, like blackmail or rape.  

[Martell Spy]

Quote

 

President Donald Trump met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) at the White House on Friday to try to broker an agreement. But the New York Democrat returned without one, saying he and Trump discussed “all the areas” on which the two sides disagree.

“We had a long and detailed meeting," Schumer said. "We discussed all of the major outstanding issues, we made some progress, but we still have a good number of disagreements. The discussions will continue.”

 

Congress, Trump down to the wire on shutdown
President Donald Trump met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer at the White House but they did not reach a deal

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/19/government-shutdown-2018-blame-349398

[DanteGabriel]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

But why on earth are you surprised about this?  There's not a single person in the world who could have possibly believed that Trump was monogamous with his wives.  

This might be a good time for so called liberals to openly embrace non monogamous relationships.  It should no longer be a requirement that politicians practice monogamy nor should any acts of adultery - whether approved by the spouse or not- be relevant. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, like blackmail or rape.  

I don't think it's American liberals you need to convince about keeping out of politicians' private lives. It's the hypocritical McJesusites who pretend to care about "traditional" marriage and monogamy and abstinence as long it's a cudgel against liberals, and then discovered moral relativism when it's time to support Trump, or Vitter, or Gingrich.

[Dr. Pepper]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

I don't think it's American liberals you need to convince about keeping out of politicians' private lives. It's the hypocritical McJesusites who pretend to care about "traditional" marriage and monogamy and abstinence as long it's a cudgel against liberals, and then discovered moral relativism when it's time to support Trump, or Vitter, or Gingrich.

Well duh.  The McJesusites will always be concerned about everyone else's private lives and completely ignore their own faults in the matter.  They have their sky fairy, after all, to whom they can just ask forgiveness and all is well.  

But we're talking about the liberal reaction here.  These are liberals on this forum that are expressing shock and outrage about what appears to be a consensual affair.  Liberals who are worrying themselves over poor Melania without any idea of the boundaries within tha tparticular marriage.  Liberals who are being rabidly against non-monogamy.  

[Martell Spy]

23 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Maybe, maybe not, but it's not like they haven't marched together before. I believe it was only a decade ago that they were still doing it. Anyways, one could argue that Trump's behavior is actually helping DPRK achieve it's central goal of reunification. 

Yes, and how does them marching together stop NK from becoming a nuclear power? That's their main goal and it's the Trump admin's stated main goal to stop it. Everything that happens in between now and when they achieve their goal is them buying what little time they need to finish. They may want some time after they finish building a nuke that can reach the mainland US to do other things to prepare, but that's pretty much the goal.

We're basically down to two likely scenarios. One, NK will become a nuclear power. Many will hate this, but it's likely the best scenario available, and it is a pretty terrible result. Two, the U.S. and/or South Korea attacks NK. The obvious results of scenario 2, which are likely horrific, are why scenario one is the best result available.

Couple other scenarios, but they really don't seem likely. China intervenes. The various sanctions on NK actually work in halting NK's progress toward it's goal. (I think this is highly unlikely at this point)

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

Well duh.  The McJesusites will always be concerned about everyone else's private lives and completely ignore their own faults in the matter.  They have their sky fairy, after all, to whom they can just ask forgiveness and all is well.  

But we're talking about the liberal reaction here.  These are liberals on this forum that are expressing shock and outrage about what appears to be a consensual affair.  Liberals who are worrying themselves over poor Melania without any idea of the boundaries within tha tparticular marriage.  Liberals who are being rabidly against non-monogamy.  

I did not notice the shock and outrage you've been fixated on here. I think the liberal outrage here is about Trump's grotesque attitudes about women and the fact that he gets away with what would have sunk any other politician. 

I think your desire to increase social acceptance of non-monogamous relationships is affecting your view of other people's arguments. And I think it's a little silly for you to take the "we don't know the parameters of their marriage" stance with Donald Trump of all people.

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

I did not notice the shock and outrage you've been fixated on here. I think the liberal outrage here is about Trump's grotesque attitudes about women and the fact that he gets away with what would have sunk any other politician. 

I think your desire to increase social acceptance of non-monogamous relationships is affecting your view of other people's arguments. And I think it's a little silly for you to take the "we don't know the parameters of their marriage" stance with Donald Trump of all people.

Sure, over the last two years that has been an ongoing outrage over Trump's treatment of women.  But this current conversation has focused on the Stormy Daniels issue.  All of the posters I've responded to have been pretty clear about their issue with him cheating on his wife.

No, my desire to stop monogamy bias bullshit isn't affecting my view.  I can still read.  Can you? How about you go back and look at Tywin et als post, aceluby, fragile bird, nasty long rider and a few others I might have forgotten.  They were focused on the cheating with a bit of extra on the NDA.   

And no, it's not silly to say that we don't know about their marriage.  What's silly is a bunch of people trying to victimize Melania as though she were too stupid to know the type of person she wed.