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

[aceluby]

52 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Well, you can pretend the girther issue isn't both about lies, birth claims and fat shaming, but you're wrong.  Fat shaming is certainly a component of it.

And no, it's not laughable.  Evangelicals are the most hypocritical shit who ever walked the face of the earth.  They voted for a man who bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women.  No one thought Trump was ever monogamous with his wives.  Yes, I am interested in normalizing non monogamy.  You people don't get to say how other people conduct their relationships.  It doesn't appear that Trump blackmailed his lover on video, she wasn't his intern, he didn't rape her.  Looks consensual.  You're focusing on something ridiculously stupid and private.  

Yeah, it's totally normal for healthy consensual relationships to end in $160k NDAs.  If anything, I look for Presidents who do a good job of covering their tracks with bribe money.

[mormont]

[mod] I'm going to say this once more:

Discuss the topic. Do not discuss your opinions of each other. That is not, and never will be, the topic of this thread. Keep them to yourselves. If you want to complain about how someone 'always' behaves, or whatever, go vent about it to your friends or your family offline. Doing it on a thread only turns that thread into a personal spat instead of a discussion. 

Knock it off. 

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Yeah, it's totally normal for healthy consensual relationships to end in $160k NDAs.  If anything, I look for Presidents who do a good job of covering their tracks with bribe money.

It seems totally normal for a vain fucker to not want his lover to say anything that would make him look like a total shit in the sack.

With the bolded, are you suggesting that you were looking for a reason to view Trump as worthy presidential material.  Because I find that incredibly unlikely.  There's literally no surprise that Trump has had other lovers or that he might have paid them off.  Furthermore, any comments about poor Melania or what a bad marriage are made by those who try to promote monogamy as the only valid type of relationship.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Well, you can pretend the girther issue isn't both about lies, birth claims and fat shaming, but you're wrong.  Fat shaming is certainly a component of it.

And no, it's not laughable.  Evangelicals are the most hypocritical shit who ever walked the face of the earth.  They voted for a man who bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women.  No one thought Trump was ever monogamous with his wives.  Yes, I am interested in normalizing non monogamy.  You people don't get to say how other people conduct their relationships.  It doesn't appear that Trump blackmailed his lover on video, she wasn't his intern, he didn't rape her.  Looks consensual.  You're focusing on something ridiculously stupid and private.  

Isn't the ideal for non-monogamous relationships focus on openness and honesty though? I think the payment of hush money is the main story, which seems to run counter to those ideals.

Also, I think it is extremely important to point out Trump's and the Republican Party's hypocrisy by attaching him as the Chosen One to the supposed "party of family values". It may not make a huge difference with all his evangelical supporters, but it probably will make a small difference with some of them. It's politics, so it's all about driving wedges and forcing leverage. This is leverage and is therefore fair game.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Isn't the ideal for non-monogamous relationships focus on openness and honesty though? I think the payment of hush money is the main story, which seems to run counter to those ideals.

How so?  Stormy Daniels' interview seems to focus a lot on how not great Trump is in bed and mocked things he did.  Considering everything we know about Trump, how is it surprising that he wouldn't want her to go through with the expose about all of this?  It paints him in a bad light. Furthermore, just because people might have a non-monogamous relationship doesn't mean they want to be open with the public about it.  Non-monogamy is not popular.  And honestly, we literally have no idea about their relationship.  Maybe Melania was the only person in the world to think the Orange Stain would be monogamous with her, maybe she thought that he'd never look at another woman or kiss them or grab their pussies or whatever.  But the point is that we don't know and no one is done any favors by going down the 'oh poor Melania home alone with her infant son while her husband ran around in his tighty whities."

Quote

Also, I think it is extremely important to point out Trump's and the Republican Party's hypocrisy by attaching him as the Chosen One to the supposed "party of family values". It may not make a huge difference with all his evangelical supporters, but it probably will make a small difference with some of them. It's politics, so it's all about driving wedges and forcing leverage. This is leverage and is therefore fair game.

Sure, except it's always been the case.  The party of family values has always been flexible when it comes to their own.  The right, especially the religious right, stands for nothing aside from a couple of core issues associated with with anti-women and anti-lgbt ideals.  Remember, these are the people who voted for Trump knowing that he walked in on naked girls and that he bragged about sexually assaulting women.  They literally don't give a fuck about anything or any sort of hypocrisy.  They'll claim god is using an imperfect tool or they'll talk about forgiveness or whatever.  It's the problem with people who put their imaginary creatures ahead of anything else.  They can make those imaginary creatures do anything they want.  

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

How so?  Stormy Daniels' interview seems to focus a lot on how not great Trump is in bed and mocked things he did.  Considering everything we know about Trump, how is it surprising that he wouldn't want her to go through with the expose about all of this?  It paints him in a bad light. Furthermore, just because people might have a non-monogamous relationship doesn't mean they want to be open with the public about it.  Non-monogamy is not popular.  And honestly, we literally have no idea about their relationship.  Maybe Melania was the only person in the world to think the Orange Stain would be monogamous with her, maybe she thought that he'd never look at another woman or kiss them or grab their pussies or whatever.  But the point is that we don't know and no one is done any favors by going down the 'oh poor Melania home alone with her infant son while her husband ran around in his tighty whities."

Sure, except it's always been the case.  The party of family values has always been flexible when it comes to their own.  The right, especially the religious right, stands for nothing aside from a couple of core issues associated with with anti-women and anti-lgbt ideals.  Remember, these are the people who voted for Trump knowing that he walked in on naked girls and that he bragged about sexually assaulting women.  They literally don't give a fuck about anything or any sort of hypocrisy.  They'll claim god is using an imperfect tool or they'll talk about forgiveness or whatever.  It's the problem with people who put their imaginary creatures ahead of anything else.  They can make those imaginary creatures do anything they want.  

I'm against NDA's on general principle. I feel that if someone wants you to sign an NDA, they generally have something to hide. Regarding the Stormy Daniels story specifically, I view it as being in a similar vein to the recent Aziz Ansari story as part of the #MeToo movement. I'm somewhat conflicted on the Ansari story. If Ansari had paid "Grace" $130,000 in hush money and forced her to sign a NDA, I'd be much less conflicted. In the descriptions of the story I've seen, it didn't seem as if Daniels was enthusiastically consenting.

Regarding evangelicals, it just feels like you're painting with an awfully broad brush. Not all evangelicals voted for Trump the first time around, and if this story peels more of them away, then that's a good thing. Pointing out the hypocrisy of evangelical Trump supporters to the broader public is also efficacious in my opinion.

[DMC]

Poor Chuck.

[Fez]

Schumer is headed to the White House now after Trump called him; and Ryan and McConnell won't be there. On the one hand, this is the best chance to get a good deal done. One the other hand, there's always a solid chance that Trump backs out of any deal after he's talked to his staff once Schumer leaves.

[Prince of the North]

3 minutes ago, Fez said:

Schumer is headed to the White House now after Trump called him; and Ryan and McConnell won't be there. On the one hand, this is the best chance to get a good deal done. One the other hand, there's always a solid chance that Trump backs out of any deal after he's talked to his staff once Schumer leaves.

Yep, and they'll make damn sure Schumer isn't the last one to talk to him.  They know full well how easily he's influenced.  I just hope, if there is in fact a shutdown, that the democrats do a good job of winning the PR/blame battle.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

I could give a fuck about this poem star, but I would encourage that discarded bread crust to fuck around, whatever kept him out of my bed

Best. Typo. Ever!

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Prince of the North said:

Yep, and they'll make damn sure Schumer isn't the last one to talk to him.  They know full well how easily he's influenced.  I just hope, if there is in fact a shutdown, that the democrats do a good job of winning the PR/blame battle.

What Schumer needs to do, if a deal is struck is struck, is to say something like

"Thank you Mr. President for your leadership on this issue. How about we invite the press in right now so you can take the proper credit for this historic accomplishment?"

And then not leave until it happens. If Trump gives a public statement like that, and then sees all the glowing press coverage about this important bipartisanship in action (which will definitely happen), it'd take more than a day for him to get convinced to change his mind again.

 

ETA: Also,

Trump's got that $100,000 per plate party to get to tonight.

[Jace, Extat]

Looks like Sessions has finally found an adversary worthy of his legal skills in a 12 year old girl with epilepsy.

http://www.newsweek.com/jeff-sessions-war-pot-goes-court-attorney-general-will-fight-12-year-old-780749?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news

[TheKitttenGuard]

It will be in Schumer interest to get Trump in front of media if something is done.

[Dr. Pepper]

45 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm against NDA's on general principle. I feel that if someone wants you to sign an NDA, they generally have something to hide. Regarding the Stormy Daniels story specifically, I view it as being in a similar vein to the recent Aziz Ansari story as part of the #MeToo movement. I'm somewhat conflicted on the Ansari story. If Ansari had paid "Grace" $130,000 in hush money and forced her to sign a NDA, I'd be much less conflicted. In the descriptions of the story I've seen, it didn't seem as if Daniels was enthusiastically consenting.

Regarding evangelicals, it just feels like you're painting with an awfully broad brush. Not all evangelicals voted for Trump the first time around, and if this story peels more of them away, then that's a good thing. Pointing out the hypocrisy of evangelical Trump supporters to the broader public is also efficacious in my opinion.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is similar to Grace's story about Ansari.  Hers was a single bad date that may have included nonconsensual sexual activities (that's a complicated situation so I'll not veer off into discussing it further in this thread) while Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump that lasted at least multiple meetings.  I'm not aware of any part of the story that includes it being not particularly consenting.  She seemed to think it wasn't very fun or enjoyable, but it doesn't appear as though she felt it was forced or something she couldn't easily extricate herself from. She claims to have been the one to actively end the affair.  Further, the NDA came years after the fact, right when Trump was running for president.  His motivations for seeking a NDA at that time are much different than Ansari's motivations would have been.

Yeah, I paint evangelicals who vote for Trump, specifically conservative sorts of evangelicals with a broad brush because they deserve it.  They are a hypocritical people.  They voted for an admitted sexual assaulter.  I think hammering on this particular story does more harm to all sorts of people (including the #metoo movement) than any potential good.  

 

[Jace, Extat]

17 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is similar to Grace's story about Ansari.  Hers was a single bad date that may have included nonconsensual sexual activities (that's a complicated situation so I'll not veer off into discussing it further in this thread) while Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump that lasted at least multiple meetings.  I'm not aware of any part of the story that includes it being not particularly consenting.  She seemed to think it wasn't very fun or enjoyable, but it doesn't appear as though she felt it was forced or something she couldn't easily extricate herself from. She claims to have been the one to actively end the affair.  Further, the NDA came years after the fact, right when Trump was running for president.  His motivations for seeking a NDA at that time are much different than Ansari's motivations would have been.

Yeah, I paint evangelicals who vote for Trump, specifically conservative sorts of evangelicals with a broad brush because they deserve it.  They are a hypocritical people.  They voted for an admitted sexual assaulter.  I think hammering on this particular story does more harm to all sorts of people (including the #metoo movement) than any potential good.  

 

It is worth pointing out that there is a difference between 'Evangelicals' and 'religious people'.

Evangelicals are bigots and zealots.

Religious people can be perfectly reasonable, indeed one of the most powerful experiences I've ever had the privilege to be a part of was when a friend of mine invited me to go to his majority black congregation. I went four or five times before I moved up north because it was just an extremely positive environment and not once did anyone make me feel unwelcome for not sharing their belief in a single all deciding entity.

 

[Dr. Pepper]

47 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Looks like Sessions has finally found an adversary worthy of his legal skills in a 12 year old girl with epilepsy.

http://www.newsweek.com/jeff-sessions-war-pot-goes-court-attorney-general-will-fight-12-year-old-780749?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news

Maybe he's not all that invested in the anti-pot stance?  This is like the perfect pro pot case they couldn't find

2 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

It is worth pointing out that there is a difference between 'Evangelicals' and 'religious people'.

Evangelicals are bigots and zealots.

Religious people can be perfectly reasonable, indeed one of the most powerful experiences I've ever had the privilege to be a part of was when a friend of mine invited me to go to his majority black congregation. I went four or five times before I moved up north because it was just an extremely positive environment and not once did anyone make me feel unwelcome for not sharing their belief in a single all deciding entity.

 

There are liberal evangelicals.  They stand out because they don't put their imaginary crap before everything else.  

[aceluby]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I haven't seen anything to indicate that this is similar to Grace's story about Ansari.  Hers was a single bad date that may have included nonconsensual sexual activities (that's a complicated situation so I'll not veer off into discussing it further in this thread) while Stormy Daniels had an affair with Trump that lasted at least multiple meetings.  I'm not aware of any part of the story that includes it being not particularly consenting.  She seemed to think it wasn't very fun or enjoyable, but it doesn't appear as though she felt it was forced or something she couldn't easily extricate herself from. She claims to have been the one to actively end the affair.  Further, the NDA came years after the fact, right when Trump was running for president.  His motivations for seeking a NDA at that time are much different than Ansari's motivations would have been.

Yeah, I paint evangelicals who vote for Trump, specifically conservative sorts of evangelicals with a broad brush because they deserve it.  They are a hypocritical people.  They voted for an admitted sexual assaulter.  I think hammering on this particular story does more harm to all sorts of people (including the #metoo movement) than any potential good.  

 

"Not aware...'

"It doesn't appear...."

"She seemed...."

Fact is that all of what you are saying can't be confirmed because there is an NDA in place that was exchanged for $160k.  You might not think that's an issue from a guy who admits to sexually assaulting women, but many people do.  Not only that, this is the fucking POTUS.  He should be held to a higher standard, and a serial sexual predator shouldn't be able to sweep a story where he pays off a woman for a large sum of money for silence under the rug because "hey, it seems like it could have been probably consensual maybe in this case".

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, aceluby said:

"Not aware...'

"It doesn't appear...."

"She seemed...."

Fact is that all of what you are saying can't be confirmed because there is an NDA in place that was exchanged for $160k.  You might not think that's an issue from a guy who admits to sexually assaulting women, but many people do.  Not only that, this is the fucking POTUS.  He should be held to a higher standard, and a serial sexual predator shouldn't be able to sweep a story where he pays off a woman for a large sum of money for silence under the rug because "hey, it seems like it could have been probably consensual maybe in this case".

I'm going by the interview she gave to InTouch many years ago, an interview given years before she signed the NDA.  The interview indicates that the story was verified.  I'm using language to indicate that I understand there could be a different part of the story, but that none of that is apparent at this time.

You people are acting like the timing of the NDA - immediately before he announced his candidacy for president and years after the fact - doesn't matter.  Are you incapable of coming to logical conclusions about why maybe he or his family wouldn't want an affair to be discussed while he's actively campaigning?

Yeah, a president should be held to a higher standard, but we're talking about Trump.  He's a known predator.  The fact that this case doesn't have anything that indicates this was a non consensual experience is already at a higher standard than anything else he does.  

[Fez]

It seems too late in the day for these kinds of statements to be a good sign.

 

On the other hand, he's not trying to blame Trump. And Trump hasn't tweeted any immediate attacks. So maybe something will get done.

I think I'm leaning towards shutdown though.

[aceluby]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

You people are acting like the timing of the NDA - immediately before he announced his candidacy for president and years after the fact - doesn't matter.  Are you incapable of coming to logical conclusions about why maybe he or his family wouldn't want an affair to be discussed while he's actively campaigning? 

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.