RiverDog wrote: We already know that Donald Trump has always behaved like a spoiled rich kid ala the Kennedys, treats women as objects placed on this Earth to satisfy his personal pleasures, is morally bankrupt, and will deny anything that's even mildly embarrassing to him by declaring it as fake news.
c_hawkbob wrote:You and I and 60% of America (and 90% of the rest of the world) knows that, but there are still a great many Americans (my Dad among them) that believe it's all made up in an unprecedented smear campaign.
How hypocritical was it when most of the men (from both parties) who sat on the Senatorial Judicial Committee and who sat in judgement of Bill Clinton ha had as many extramarital affairs than he had???
Largent80 wrote:People voted for Rump knowing of "grab 'em by the pussy"...So what?
The experiment with a president outside of political conventional means is 2 years from being done.
It's been a laugh show, and at our expense. Young people are smart and are going to vote. Bye Rump.
"Stormy Daniels" can now afford LASIK, so she can actually see who she is effing. Because dude is a toad, an ugly pile, same with Melania. Either she actually is blind or her love of money is beyond comprehension because she's married to the toad under the bridge.
Old but Slow wrote:I'm guessing that values don't matter anymore. Sad.
RiverDog wrote:The issue here isn't whether or not Trump had a sexual relationship with "that woman" or not. He almost certainly did, but just as in Monicagate, it's the cover-up, not the acts themselves, that's relevant. Did Trump's hush money violate election laws? Did his surrogates physically threaten Daniels as her attorney claims?
Other than that, there is absolutely nothing surprising or revealing in the interview. We already know that Donald Trump has always behaved like a spoiled rich kid ala the Kennedys, treats women as objects placed on this Earth to satisfy his personal pleasures, is morally bankrupt, and will deny anything that's even mildly embarrassing to him by declaring it as fake news.
Aseahawkfan wrote:
Has fidelity in marriage values been important since JFK or Clinton? Did you vote for either one or both? This is strange coming from a guy that I've always known to be a very Democratic voter when your party pretty much tossed any idea of fidelity in marriage out the window with Kennedy and even more so with Bill Clinton. Not even sure why we even analyze it much any longer.
Or maybe you are being sarcastic. Hard to tell. Values haven't mattered for quite a while now save to the few deluded folks that don't read much about our government beyond the surface of what is sold to us.
RiverDog wrote:I do think that there's enough evidence for the election commission to open an investigation. I don't necessarily believe the story about her getting threatened, or at least threatened by Trump surrogates, but the hush money is obviously not Kosher.
If the election commission opens an investigation and subsequently concludes that Trump paid him off, then the question becomes what should be done about it? Is a violation of election laws a "high crime or misdemeanor"? On the surface, I would think that it is not.
And Hawktalk, Robert Mueller is not authorized to investigate anything that is not related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. This would have to be a separate investigation by the election commission.
Seahawks4Ever wrote:The POTUS has seen his approval ratings raise to their greatest height since the 100 day mark of his administration. Why?? Well, he HAS had some successes lately and that obviously COUNTS for something.
I did NOT vote for this guy, but, you know what? I just MIGHT vote for his re-election IF his successes continue. Don't get me wrong, I still LOATHE many things about this POTUS but the liberals and their press is acting more cartoonish than HE IS and that is saying something.
On MSNBC Joe Scarborough & Co. finally woke up and called out the Stormie Daniels fiasco for what it is, a move by SD and her lawyer to shake down DJT and laugh all the way to the bank.
The rest of those talking heads on both MSNBC and CNN still seem to be "true believers" that it will be the "bimbo squad" that will be the ones who bring down Trump.
Don't yo9u believe it! The more "exposure" these women and their greedy lawyers get the HIGHER Trumps approval ratings Climb.
Maybe the Dems should take up a collection and PAY off these women themselves so that they will GO AWAY and quit making DJT "great again"!
BTW; Good job Mr. Trump in FINALLY slamming Russia. See, that wasn't SO HARD Don, was it?
Look Donald, if yo9u are on the hook to the Russian mafia and /or Putin then OU NOT UNLEASHED ALL OF THE WEAPONS AT YOUR DISPOSAL AND TAKE THE 875638284 OUT. Unleash the whole National Security apparatus on those commies!!
OH, I get it now Don, that's why you hired that new National Security Advisor, someone who is tough enough to do the job and get 'er done.
Donald J. Trump, you are the FREAKING POTUS, you should FEAR NO ONE, now act like it!!!
RiverDog wrote:I do think that there's enough evidence for the election commission to open an investigation. I don't necessarily believe the story about her getting threatened, or at least threatened by Trump surrogates, but the hush money is obviously not Kosher.
If the election commission opens an investigation and subsequently concludes that Trump paid him off, then the question becomes what should be done about it? Is a violation of election laws a "high crime or misdemeanor"? On the surface, I would think that it is not.
And Hawktalk, Robert Mueller is not authorized to investigate anything that is not related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. This would have to be a separate investigation by the election commission.
Aseahawkfan wrote:How is hush money to some tramp to protect your marriage a violation of election laws? Trump had a lot more to protect than an election by paying her money.
Hawktawk wrote:You are incorrect about mueller.
Hawktawk wrote:RD I believe Mueller needs to ask one person, Rod rosenstein who appointed him to expand the investigation. Its been leaked that its already in his purvey as i've said.
Micheal Avenatti, lawyer for Daniels says the list of other women who have approached him about representing them in their efforts to escape NDAs involving Trump is at EIGHT!!!! Hes careful to say he has not verified their claims yet. I found it interesting that Trumps long time lawyer Cohen says he paid daniels out of a line of credit he borrowed against his house. I couldn't understand why a billionaires long time lawyer wouldnt have 130 K readily available or why the Trump machine would intimidate her into such a low figure to begin with. But what if there are 9 OR MORE OF THESE OUT THERE. Now its a million plus which Trump cannot legally reimburse without basically admitting hes been screwing all these women and paid them off in the same time frame as calling his abuse victims liars and terrible people. Cohen is reportedly angry about not being able to get his money back.
And yet so many Americans just don't care. We've had skunks in the oval office many times but this one has utterly shedded the moral fabric of our nation and we will never get it back.
Seahawks4Ever wrote:NO! The "moral" fabric of this nation was shredded when Bill Clinton blatantly LIED to the American people, was IMPEACHED but then was found NOT GUILTY. THAT is what opened the door to having a guy like Trump who is basically a horndog who can't control his impulses.
I was once read a quote (years ago) from a Playboy Playmate who said that she didn't trust any man whose #1 goal in life is to get laid and everything else is SECONDARY. WOW! I thought when I read that, how true, how true. This same PM also said that when "they" dig up this society in about 10,000 years they will think that Ronald Mc Donald was a GOD (because of the plastic) and again I thought "what a SMART and incisive woman" this Gal is going places! Never heard about her again.
You would think someone that incisive would be a big cheese by now... I wonder what happened??
Anyway, if Mueller gets involved in this Dems can forget all about taking back either house of congress and get used to Trump being a 2nd. termer because in case you hadn't noticed Trump has had success after success and is surging in popularity. I know, I know it sucks but it is what it is.
If Trump succeeds in denuclearization of the Korean Pen. he will be guaranteed a 2nd. term and, maybe MORE... A Constitutional Convention could wipe away those term limits imposed on the presidency after FDR was elected 4 times. All the GOP did in '48 was to "cut their noses off to spite their faces when they did that. Every president since then has grasped for more and more power and any POTUS who wins a 2nd. term becomes an instant lame duck. What the GOP failed to understand was that it was that THREAT of a 3rd. term that kept congress "honest" and kept a POTUS strong all the way through their presidency. Should FDR have run for a 3rd. term? YES! It was because of EXTRAORDINARY circumstances that led him to that decision. Should he have run for a 4th. term?? Probably not but then we probably would have had a President Dewey instead of a Truman presidency and I am not sure how that would have turned out because while Dewey had been a great prosecutor he had not been so great a governor and was some what a light weight in national politics and would been controlled by the GOP political apparatus. That's my opinion, of course.
RiverDog wrote:There's lots of hypocrites on both sides of the issue, my friend. Many of those that now want to impeach Trump for his actions before he was even a candidate are the same ones that defended Bill Clinton for actions when he was in the White House.
The ball is back in Daniel's court. A federal judge denied their request to depose Trump, without which the case goes nowhere. But it keeps Stormy Daniels in the news, and increases the number of hits her videos get.
Hawktawk wrote:Presidents and rich powerful people in general have been diddling around forever.Of course blacks had to sit in the back of the bus at one time as well. However Clinton was the first man to be caught with his pants down, literally and figuratively. His *affair * with Lewinsky was really sexual harassment and abuse of a naive 22 year old intern by the most powerful man on the planet. As she said years later, was I really mature enough to give "consent" to the president of the united states? of course not. Clinton was also accused of rape and sexual assault by multiple women and they are credible. I believe him to be a rapist.
But here's where the Trumpies lose me big time. They say "what about Clinton" to excuse a man who doinks porn stars, playboy bunnies while his beautiful 3rd wife sits home with his 1 year old child, sends out goons to silence them, has his fixer pay them off days before a presidential election, grabs pussies at will as verified by 22 victims accounts and there are probably a hundred, abuses law enforcement and scoffs at the rule of law, colludes with our greatest geopolitical foe, is depraved and stupid enough to be filmed playing golden showers with multiple russian hookers in the ritz carlton moscow (if you don't believe this by now with what is now known about this man I have some swampland in florida to sell you.)
Yeah what about Clinton? The republican house of reprehensibles impeached Clinton. I cheered along with Rush Limbaugh and my fellow members of the party of morality and family values, the homophobic religious right puritanical standard bearers for decency in America.
And we were correct. NO man who has done such things should be the leader for the free world no matter what his ideology or ability to compartmentalize and govern expertly. The democrats in the media and government, particularly the Senate did an awful thing by saying this was OK. a part of the fabric holding America together was irrevocably torn. Yes it paved the way for Trump.
But follow along. The people who rooted for the impeachment of Clinton have absolutely no credibility left, not a shred, not an iota. The evangelical movement is evil, dead, utterly hypocritical slime balls. Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity etc. They are worse than Clinton's defenders were 22 years ago because they are now the defenders of a man less competent,unstable, morally bankrupt, a far bigger perpetrator of abuse on women, a treasonous traitor to America. Trump supporters in my former lifelong party disgust me but unfortunately not near enough others yet.
STFU about Clinton ,Hypocrites
RiverDog wrote: A federal judge denied their request to depose Trump, without which the case goes nowhere.
c_hawkbob wrote:You can't really suppose that all he has to do to make this all go away is just not respond to it ....
c_hawkbob wrote:IMO there is no "make it go away" ... one way or the other these stories are going to come out, I think the best he can hope for is to keep the lid on things while he's still in office.
Seahawks4Ever wrote:What makes Stephanie Clifford's case frivolous? Is it the fact that she basically won the day Trump said he didn't know anything about the NDA or the 130G hush hush payment? No person can be Party to an Agreement yet claim to know nothing about said agreement and/or payment.
Sounds like game, set, match Stephanie Clifford, a far cry from being a "frivolous" law suit sounds more like a SLAM DUNK.
You look silly when you try do defend Trump, Dog.
RiverDog wrote:I'm not defending Trump. I can't stand the man. IMO he's a despicable human being, one of the worst, if not the worst, individuals we've ever elected to the office.
But I don't see any evidence of a crime being committed. She's going to have to come up with more than this artist's rendition of a man she claims to have threatened her. NDA's are completely legal except that this one probably violated a campaign law, of which would have zero affect on Daniels. IMO this whole thing is being fabricated by her in order for her and her lawyer to make money off her notoriety of her having slept with the POTUS. She's already admitted that her video business is booming since she went public.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump's the loudest and most obvious with his lies, moral behavior, and the like. I don't know. Presidents have always been people of mixed character. You have to be to be president. Despicable compared to what? How exactly would you compare it? I'd be surprised if you could name a president that didn't do something a normal human being would consider despicable during their administration.
I would say you like the Machiavellian facade that presidents put up. It makes you feel better about them like it does for 90% plus of Americans. Someone like me doesn't care that much about their personal character as the job requires a man of moral greyness to succeed. So many interests must be managed in the White House and so many actions taken, some good, some evil, most between, you can't be a good person in that chair. I don't even think you can be a good person to become President. I truly don't.
RiverDog wrote:I wasn't necessarily comparing him to former presidents. I don't like his persona. I think he's a bigot, that he treats women like yesterday's newspaper, that he's a very poor role model, he has a big mouth that he can't keep shut, he's extremely reactionary, and so on, and so on.
I used to ask this question regarding Bill Clinton, but I think it's more appropriate to ask it about Donald Trump. Outside of his money and fame, would you want your daughter to marry someone like DJT?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 9 guests