seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

The current president keeps insisting he is Christian and that he is not a liar. Both are false. Also, bribery is against the law. See: $130,000 payoff to Stormy Daniels. It is the righties that keep screaming about "it's no one's business what consenting adults do!" You righties are so laser focused on that one point. Unless you talk about "Slick Willie" and his CONSENTING affairs. Then, all bets are off.

Stop justifying your liar in chief by bringing up Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is not being discussed in this thread. Bill Clinton is not the current president. As much as you righties love to deflect from your own leader's shortcomings, you have to own this. Personal responsibility. That is what you demand from the rest of us. I know you all are exempt from your own rules so why do I even bother writing all this?

It doesn't meet the legal definition of bribery. Its a confidentiality agreement. The source of the money is where it could be illegal and its being investigated to see if it was.

If you and I had a business meeting last night its not illegal for me to pay you to not tell anyone what we talked about. Its no different for an affair.

Why did it take so long to bribe her? From the time he cheated to the time the money was paid was years. If the two acts had happened the same time, I could understand. Also, what is up with setting up a shell company? Something is fishy about the whole thing.

I don't know for sure why the delay but I'll bet she saw an opportunity to make some money and initiated the conversation with Trump and his team. Magazines, TV and the press in general would pay more for the details now that the subject is a presidential nominee.

Setting up a shell company for stuff like that isn't unheard of. Its very common to do that for transactions of all kinds, even routine ones. I've done it for simple real estate transactions. It keeps things separate, simplifies taxes and limits liability.

I mean its pretty typical piggy Trump but it doesn't seem like anything too crazy. I'm sure the legal system will work things out if there is anything untoward legally. We've not even heard her side of the story yet other than the interview she gave a while ago. Even she admitted it was just a pathetic experience and nothing too crazy happened. Other than being politically salacious it really is a non-story.

ltbewr wrote:

In the end, most people who vote don't care about the sex lives of their leaders, they see it as a private matter...

I think that Drumpf being elected after his "you can grab them by the ******, they don't care" comments indicates that the electorate as a whole didn't care about Drumpfs womanizing. Same was true when Clinton got elected after open discussion of his various affairs, especially the infamous 60 minutes interview with Hillary. I'm sure in both cases the supporters wished their man was clean as the driven snow, but in both cases he wasn't, and the supporters just had to hold their noses and get on with it.

It's interesting to see the power gradient in both the Daniels and Lewinsky cases. Drumpf used his fame and wealth to get over on Daniels. Clinton used his power of office and employer/employee relationship to get over on Lewinsky. If we're judging sins, I'd say Clinton's is worse than Drumpfs. As a lawyer he should have known that workplace sex is a big no-no. What Drumph is doing is unethical but not illegal.

ltbewr wrote:

... and will vote more on economic issues that affect them.

That's one of the more interesting things about the 2016 campaign: it's pretty clear that the red state working class angry white old man demographic that got Drumph elected was not voting in a way to favor their economic interest, they voted based on the desire to reverse a bunch of perceived insults they feel they've suffered over the years.

The fact that the Dems trotted out an aging workhorse candidate with lots of baggage weighing her down helped them immensely. For instance any other candidate would not have had Bill Clinton's shadow over them. The fact that the could not find a younger candidate who could energize their base hurt tremendously. And guess what, they don't seem to be developing any such candidate now either.

seb146 wrote:

As long as he keeps telling everyone he is a Christian and Republican, his base does not care. He really could shoot some random person or people on 5th Ave and his base would throw a party for him and even set up a Go Fund Me page for his defense!

It is a mighty polarized world out there.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Yah I don’t think anyone cares, especially not from the people that brought us Richard Spencer, very fine people in nazi marches, and Billy bloody Graham

Of course you don't care because it exposes your hypocrisy. Standard.

NIKV69 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Yah I don’t think anyone cares, especially not from the people that brought us Richard Spencer, very fine people in nazi marches, and Billy bloody Graham

Of course you don't care because it exposes your hypocrisy. Standard.

Ha!

Love ya, buddy! Such doggedness!

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

Well the latest poll on this matter said 57% of Americans would find him 'racist', so i guess a pretty solid majority of people is irrelevant in your world.

Well, and it is not even a question of believe. He just bragged he won the majority of women votes, which is very much not true, but the number he gave is precisely how many white women votes he got. Non-white votes are obviously not valid votes for him .....

best regards
Thomas

There's many, many qualities that I wish Trump supporters had, but the quality I wish they had the most was a sense of irony.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

So far there has been no evidence that Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels. It is all fake news. But IF he did who cares? It was years before he even thought of running for President, and it has no affect on his ability to run the country. Clinton did far worse and had an affair while he was in office (littlerally, he conducted sex acts in the oval office). But still... that is Trumps personal life..

Yes, and Trump is a changed man now. And the Evangelicals know that.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump's not exactly a family man after marrying a 3rd time (my lord, these family values that go hand in hand with the sanctity of marriage). Yet during the campaign, the GOP was willing to overlook all of that and instead attack Hillary for Bill's infidelity and for sticking with him after all was said and done (you know...because it's the whole family thing again).

The best bit was when they blamed Hillary for Bill's affair, but forgave Trump immediately for his (multiple) ones.

https://youtu.be/1YFLBjR-swo?t=17s

The mental gymnastics are truly a sight to behold!

seb146 wrote:

I wish people would stop attacking Melania. Yes, she is married to a scum bag and she married for the green card or immigrated under Einstein rules (and brought her family here as a result; chain migration which Repubtards hate), but I really don't think she wanted this. I actually feel bad for her and her son. I know she has only a specific skill set that Yale law graduate Hillary does not have, but, still, I feel bad for her....

In theory, I'd agree with you....but the fact is that she willingly married Donald. Donald is a disgusting, hateful and all around awful person. I doubt he was much different 15 years ago when Melania married him. At the end of the day, she married him for his money and since that hasn't dried up yet, she can't really complain IMO.

jetwet1 wrote:

for sure, leave the young kid out of it.

He certainly doesn't deserve any of this.

CCGPV wrote:

So all republicans are racist, bigoted morons?

Which Republicans are vocally standing up and speaking out against the racism, bigotry etc? Apart from Jeff Flake, I cant think of anyone. Feel free to name names.

seb146 wrote:

Here is $130,000 to stay quiet because I am running for president?!?!?!?!? Are you effing serious that you don't see anything wrong with that?????

Hillary would be in big trouble if she did something like that.

zkojq wrote:

There's many, many qualities that I wish Trump supporters had, but the quality I wish they had the most was a sense of irony.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

So far there has been no evidence that Trump had an affair with Stormy Daniels. It is all fake news. But IF he did who cares? It was years before he even thought of running for President, and it has no affect on his ability to run the country. Clinton did far worse and had an affair while he was in office (littlerally, he conducted sex acts in the oval office). But still... that is Trumps personal life..

Yes, and Trump is a changed man now. And the Evangelicals know that.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump's not exactly a family man after marrying a 3rd time (my lord, these family values that go hand in hand with the sanctity of marriage). Yet during the campaign, the GOP was willing to overlook all of that and instead attack Hillary for Bill's infidelity and for sticking with him after all was said and done (you know...because it's the whole family thing again).

The best bit was when they blamed Hillary for Bill's affair, but forgave Trump immediately for his (multiple) ones.

https://youtu.be/1YFLBjR-swo?t=17s

The mental gymnastics are truly a sight to behold!

seb146 wrote:

I wish people would stop attacking Melania. Yes, she is married to a scum bag and she married for the green card or immigrated under Einstein rules (and brought her family here as a result; chain migration which Repubtards hate), but I really don't think she wanted this. I actually feel bad for her and her son. I know she has only a specific skill set that Yale law graduate Hillary does not have, but, still, I feel bad for her....

In theory, I'd agree with you....but the fact is that she willingly married Donald. Donald is a disgusting, hateful and all around awful person. I doubt he was much different 15 years ago when Melania married him. At the end of the day, she married him for his money and since that hasn't dried up yet, she can't really complain IMO.

jetwet1 wrote:

for sure, leave the young kid out of it.

He certainly doesn't deserve any of this.

CCGPV wrote:

So all republicans are racist, bigoted morons?

Which Republicans are vocally standing up and speaking out against the racism, bigotry etc? Apart from Jeff Flake, I cant think of anyone. Feel free to name names.

seb146 wrote:

Here is $130,000 to stay quiet because I am running for president?!?!?!?!? Are you effing serious that you don't see anything wrong with that?????

Hillary would be in big trouble if she did something like that.

They aren't vocal about it because its not politically advantageous to do so. It sucks but their agenda is more important than calling him out. If they did that they would be politically neutered, which is equally as bad for their constituents. It sucks.

There are many Republican voters who think Trump is a disaster. But again, when it comes to election time having a Republican, any republican, in office is better than a Democrat. Same with the Democrats. No Democrat is going to vote for a Trump because they don't like their nominee. They will bite the bullet and vote D.

CCGPV wrote:

zkojq wrote:

There's many, many qualities that I wish Trump supporters had, but the quality I wish they had the most was a sense of irony.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Yes, and Trump is a changed man now. And the Evangelicals know that.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Trump's not exactly a family man after marrying a 3rd time (my lord, these family values that go hand in hand with the sanctity of marriage). Yet during the campaign, the GOP was willing to overlook all of that and instead attack Hillary for Bill's infidelity and for sticking with him after all was said and done (you know...because it's the whole family thing again).

The best bit was when they blamed Hillary for Bill's affair, but forgave Trump immediately for his (multiple) ones.

https://youtu.be/1YFLBjR-swo?t=17s

The mental gymnastics are truly a sight to behold!

seb146 wrote:

I wish people would stop attacking Melania. Yes, she is married to a scum bag and she married for the green card or immigrated under Einstein rules (and brought her family here as a result; chain migration which Repubtards hate), but I really don't think she wanted this. I actually feel bad for her and her son. I know she has only a specific skill set that Yale law graduate Hillary does not have, but, still, I feel bad for her....

In theory, I'd agree with you....but the fact is that she willingly married Donald. Donald is a disgusting, hateful and all around awful person. I doubt he was much different 15 years ago when Melania married him. At the end of the day, she married him for his money and since that hasn't dried up yet, she can't really complain IMO.

jetwet1 wrote:

for sure, leave the young kid out of it.

He certainly doesn't deserve any of this.

CCGPV wrote:

So all republicans are racist, bigoted morons?

Which Republicans are vocally standing up and speaking out against the racism, bigotry etc? Apart from Jeff Flake, I cant think of anyone. Feel free to name names.

seb146 wrote:

Here is $130,000 to stay quiet because I am running for president?!?!?!?!? Are you effing serious that you don't see anything wrong with that?????

Hillary would be in big trouble if she did something like that.

They aren't vocal about it because its not politically advantageous to do so. It sucks but their agenda is more important than calling him out. If they did that they would be politically neutered, which is equally as bad for their constituents. It sucks.

There are many Republican voters who think Trump is a disaster. But again, when it comes to election time having a Republican, any republican, in office is better than a Democrat. Same with the Democrats. No Democrat is going to vote for a Trump because they don't like their nominee. They will bite the bullet and vote D.

We'll see about your prognosis in about 6 months from now. No one has that crystal ball. But, as America, little by little, becomes great again for everyone in fly-over country, I doubt anyone of those people will vote D because, before he was President, DJT, banged a piece of ass, not his wife..... You think they're going to jump ship to the D's, AS IF, THEY are the moral High Ground??

DIRECTFLT wrote:

You think they're going to jump ship to the D's, AS IF, THEY are the moral High Ground??

No I don't, the idea that some claimed any "moral high ground" is stupid on its face (as stupid as it is incorrect).

What I am hoping is that the Republican's get disgusted by an ass (not a piece of ass but a genuine ass) and support a good candidate that will be a good president. That is certainly not Trump. But I know I won't convince any pets.

Tugg

DIRECTFLT wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

zkojq wrote:

There's many, many qualities that I wish Trump supporters had, but the quality I wish they had the most was a sense of irony.






The best bit was when they blamed Hillary for Bill's affair, but forgave Trump immediately for his (multiple) ones.

https://youtu.be/1YFLBjR-swo?t=17s

The mental gymnastics are truly a sight to behold!



In theory, I'd agree with you....but the fact is that she willingly married Donald. Donald is a disgusting, hateful and all around awful person. I doubt he was much different 15 years ago when Melania married him. At the end of the day, she married him for his money and since that hasn't dried up yet, she can't really complain IMO.


He certainly doesn't deserve any of this.


Which Republicans are vocally standing up and speaking out against the racism, bigotry etc? Apart from Jeff Flake, I cant think of anyone. Feel free to name names.



Hillary would be in big trouble if she did something like that.

They aren't vocal about it because its not politically advantageous to do so. It sucks but their agenda is more important than calling him out. If they did that they would be politically neutered, which is equally as bad for their constituents. It sucks.

There are many Republican voters who think Trump is a disaster. But again, when it comes to election time having a Republican, any republican, in office is better than a Democrat. Same with the Democrats. No Democrat is going to vote for a Trump because they don't like their nominee. They will bite the bullet and vote D.

We'll see about your prognosis in about 6 months from now. No one has that crystal ball. But, as America, little by little, becomes great again for everyone in fly-over country, I doubt anyone of those people will vote D because, before he was President, DJT, banged a piece of ass, not his wife..... You think they're going to jump ship to the D's, AS IF, THEY are the moral High Ground??

No I mean the vast majority of people who voted for Trump still will in 2020. And most people who voted for Hillary will vote for whoever they nominate. Literally none of this porn star, jesus talk matters on election day.

I hope Trump gets defeated but I don't see the Democrats doing a damn thing to stop that from happening.

CCGPV wrote:

No I mean the vast majority of people who voted for Trump still will in 2020. And most people who voted for Hillary will vote for whoever they nominate. Literally none of this porn star, jesus talk matters on election day.

I hope Trump gets defeated but I don't see the Democrats doing a damn thing to stop that from happening.

Actually if you look at what you wrote, you are wrong. "The vast majority"

The Democrat (Clinton) received 232 EC votes based on the votes of 65,853,625 people (48.0% of votes cast)
The Republican (Trump) received 306 EC votes based on the votes of 62,985,106 people (45.9% of votes cast)

By saying "vast majority" you are saying not all the same voters will vote for him. That matters. That is why things like this being known matters.

Tugg

About the law being discussed in France, it's only being discussed, we'll see where it goes. Many magistrates are worried it would put many people in legal trouble when nobody was complaining before. And the idea of a new law was prompted by a case that was so badly prosecuted that it has now been rejected by the lower court that said it should be tried as rape.

Either way prosecutors here are not elected officials trying to win cases to then run for higher office, so we'll not put thousands of teenagers in jail for consensual sex like happens in the US.

Now about this story, I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but it's very well known that "porn stars" aren't really stars, meaning they earn very little money, aside from a few exceptions, so it's very common for them to hook on the side. Last time I checked, if Trump has paid Stormy Daniels to have sex, that's illegal in your country.

Tugger wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

No I mean the vast majority of people who voted for Trump still will in 2020. And most people who voted for Hillary will vote for whoever they nominate. Literally none of this porn star, jesus talk matters on election day.

I hope Trump gets defeated but I don't see the Democrats doing a damn thing to stop that from happening.

Actually if you look at what you wrote, you are wrong. "The vast majority"

The Democrat (Clinton) received 232 EC votes based on the votes of 65,853,625 people (48.0% of votes cast)
The Republican (Trump) received 306 EC votes based on the votes of 62,985,106 people (45.9% of votes cast)

By saying "vast majority" you are saying not all the same voters will vote for him. That matters. That is why things like this being known matters.

Tugg

Its still going to come down to the undecided voter. There's going to be a fight over a couple million votes just like always. There's not going to be this massive swing to the Democrats because of Trump. The same people will vote for their party just like always. If the economy holds up he will do well.

Something is not right here. For a person that does not hold back from tweeting until bedtime, why hasn't he tweeted about this? Accusing her of being fake or being paid by Soros...nothing. I have a hunch that she has dirt and/or evidence that is just one Tweet away from being released, which explains the silence from Trump and the ambiguity on whether an NDA exists (which the White House confirmed does).

I honestly think this is a non issue. Look, JFK cheated on Jackie and he is in the history books as one of the greatest presidents of our time. The same could be said about Bill Clinton. I don't doubt Trump has cheated on Melania. The precedent has been set for fitness for the office. While I personally think a president should have better morals than these three men, the truth is whether or not he had an affair with Stormy is not really going to have any impact on his ability to do the job.

That being said, if the hush money was paid for with campaign money, then that's a much bigger deal and that has all sorts of issues with it. If it was a member of congress, there would be an ethics investigation. Really there is no equivalent that congress can do with the president besides impeachment. Does this fit the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors as laid out by the constitution? I don't think so. But its still a big problem, and why we just need to get money out of politics altogether. Ban professional lobbying, and a salary cap on total campaign donations would be a start.

If there is no issue with what Donald did with ms Daniels why did he feel he needed togive her 130k...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

apodino wrote:

Does this fit the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors as laid out by the constitution? I don't think so.

Well, a misdemeanor is a "minor wrongdoing" and this could meet that. Basically it would become the basis for any impeachment.

Tugg

Mueller just needs to follow Ken Starr's playbook. Fold Stormy into the Russia investigation just like Starr did with Monica and get Trump under oath. Then you ask as many sordid questions as you can possibly think of until Donald lies through his teeth. The man is a natural born con artist so it couldn't possibly take long to get to articles of impeachment. Based on the lack of tweety thumb action I'd say the man is shitting day-glo orange into his size 56 underpants right now. Stick this asshole with Shkreli. Make us proud again Bob!

I'm pretty left and lack words to describe how I loathe Trump but Stormy-gate makes me shrug. Two shameless whores spent some time together - I really don't care...

flipdewaf wrote:

If there is no issue with what Donald did with ms Daniels why did he feel he needed togive her 130k...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is an issue. Its an optics problem and yet another distraction. If you can pay someone to go away you do that. Seems to have backfired this time as it often does.

Non-public people do this all the time and get away with it and nobody cares but when you have entire teams of people combing through every single thing you do its way harder.

CCGPV wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

They aren't vocal about it because its not politically advantageous to do so. It sucks but their agenda is more important than calling him out. If they did that they would be politically neutered, which is equally as bad for their constituents. It sucks.

There are many Republican voters who think Trump is a disaster. But again, when it comes to election time having a Republican, any republican, in office is better than a Democrat. Same with the Democrats. No Democrat is going to vote for a Trump because they don't like their nominee. They will bite the bullet and vote D.

We'll see about your prognosis in about 6 months from now. No one has that crystal ball. But, as America, little by little, becomes great again for everyone in fly-over country, I doubt anyone of those people will vote D because, before he was President, DJT, banged a piece of ass, not his wife..... You think they're going to jump ship to the D's, AS IF, THEY are the moral High Ground??

No I mean the vast majority of people who voted for Trump still will in 2020. And most people who voted for Hillary will vote for whoever they nominate. Literally none of this porn star, jesus talk matters on election day.

I hope Trump gets defeated but I don't see the Democrats doing a damn thing to stop that from happening.

You make several points.

1) The same people who voted for him before will vote for him again and for the same reasons
2) The same people who voted for Hillary will vote Democrat again.
3) This one incident will not matter then. It is the whole, overall picture when we (hopefully) get to vote on Nov 3, 2020.
4) Democrats have to be VERY careful about who they nominate. There are several very qualified and highly capable people that can and would make excellent presidents. Going back to point 1, there is a voting block that will simply not care who is nominated. But, we already know there are people who have jumped ship. It is those voters, in addition to those who will not vote for him anyway, that the party needs to find to run.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

We'll see about your prognosis in about 6 months from now. No one has that crystal ball. But, as America, little by little, becomes great again for everyone in fly-over country, I doubt anyone of those people will vote D because, before he was President, DJT, banged a piece of ass, not his wife..... You think they're going to jump ship to the D's, AS IF, THEY are the moral High Ground??

No I mean the vast majority of people who voted for Trump still will in 2020. And most people who voted for Hillary will vote for whoever they nominate. Literally none of this porn star, jesus talk matters on election day.

I hope Trump gets defeated but I don't see the Democrats doing a damn thing to stop that from happening.

You make several points.

1) The same people who voted for him before will vote for him again and for the same reasons
2) The same people who voted for Hillary will vote Democrat again.
3) This one incident will not matter then. It is the whole, overall picture when we (hopefully) get to vote on Nov 3, 2020.
4) Democrats have to be VERY careful about who they nominate. There are several very qualified and highly capable people that can and would make excellent presidents. Going back to point 1, there is a voting block that will simply not care who is nominated. But, we already know there are people who have jumped ship. It is those voters, in addition to those who will not vote for him anyway, that the party needs to find to run.

CC’s (as per usual) flippant bloviations (in the veiled guise of being sanctimoniously “nonpartisan” when I highly doubt that could be farther from the truth) ignore any appreciation of the real determinants of elections today and that’s TURNOUT. Dems stayed home in 2016 and are paying the price.

Thus far in 2018 they have been wildly successful at winning races they wouldn’t normally come within single digits of winning in the past. That’s because enough Republicans are disgusted enough to stay home. CC is correct in that they won’t vote for Dems, but staying home is a tacit “vote” for Dems. We’ll see what happens with Conor Lamb.

jetero wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

No I mean the vast majority of people who voted for Trump still will in 2020. And most people who voted for Hillary will vote for whoever they nominate. Literally none of this porn star, jesus talk matters on election day.

I hope Trump gets defeated but I don't see the Democrats doing a damn thing to stop that from happening.

You make several points.

1) The same people who voted for him before will vote for him again and for the same reasons
2) The same people who voted for Hillary will vote Democrat again.
3) This one incident will not matter then. It is the whole, overall picture when we (hopefully) get to vote on Nov 3, 2020.
4) Democrats have to be VERY careful about who they nominate. There are several very qualified and highly capable people that can and would make excellent presidents. Going back to point 1, there is a voting block that will simply not care who is nominated. But, we already know there are people who have jumped ship. It is those voters, in addition to those who will not vote for him anyway, that the party needs to find to run.

CC’s (as per usual) flippant bloviations (in the veiled guise of being sanctimoniously “nonpartisan” when I highly doubt that could be farther from the truth) ignore any appreciation of the real determinants of elections today and that’s TURNOUT. Dems stayed home in 2016 and are paying the price.

Thus far in 2018 they have been wildly successful at winning races they wouldn’t normally come within single digits of winning in the past. That’s because enough Republicans are disgusted enough to stay home. CC is correct in that they won’t vote for Dems, but staying home is a tacit “vote” for Dems. We’ll see what happens with Conor Lamb.

Hey, maybe you are right. I certainly hope so.

What do you think my political beliefs are, by the way?

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

seb146 wrote:

You make several points.

1) The same people who voted for him before will vote for him again and for the same reasons
2) The same people who voted for Hillary will vote Democrat again.
3) This one incident will not matter then. It is the whole, overall picture when we (hopefully) get to vote on Nov 3, 2020.
4) Democrats have to be VERY careful about who they nominate. There are several very qualified and highly capable people that can and would make excellent presidents. Going back to point 1, there is a voting block that will simply not care who is nominated. But, we already know there are people who have jumped ship. It is those voters, in addition to those who will not vote for him anyway, that the party needs to find to run.

CC’s (as per usual) flippant bloviations (in the veiled guise of being sanctimoniously “nonpartisan” when I highly doubt that could be farther from the truth) ignore any appreciation of the real determinants of elections today and that’s TURNOUT. Dems stayed home in 2016 and are paying the price.

Thus far in 2018 they have been wildly successful at winning races they wouldn’t normally come within single digits of winning in the past. That’s because enough Republicans are disgusted enough to stay home. CC is correct in that they won’t vote for Dems, but staying home is a tacit “vote” for Dems. We’ll see what happens with Conor Lamb.

Hey, maybe you are right. I certainly hope so.

What do you think my political beliefs are, by the way?

I think you are at least three different people. You have shown me at least that many different personalities. I mean, I get having different personas online. I accept everyone does. You do you. You don't need to hide. You are in a safe space. Look how long it says I have been a part of this site. It has been longer, I think.

coolian2 wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

When you want to bring up southern states (which are ours to ridicule, not yours) just remember France.

I love this argument

Bet you've got a strong opinion on abortion when it ain't your uterus to control

Life begins at birth. Is that a strong opinion?

Kiwirob wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Beardown91737 wrote:

Congratulations to France for setting an age of consent..

WTF? France has a legal age of consent since 1832 and it has been 15 since 1945 .....

best regards
Thomas

You haven't read the latest news, after two cases involving two 11 year olds where the rapists were let off the public outcry has forced the govt's hand and now there is a legal age.

France's government has proposed setting a formal age of sexual consent after two-high profile cases involving 11-year-old girls, according to the country's Equality Minister.

Equality Minister Marlene Schiappa said the government "has decided to set the age at 15," after consultations with the public and an expert panel. She said a new law would be presented to Council of Ministers -- France's equivalent of a cabinet -- on March 21.
In France, current laws criminalize sex with children under the age of 15 but prosecutors must prove that the sexual act was forced.
Two cases involving the 11-year-old girls provoked outrage in France after the alleged perpetrators were acquitted of rape.
In November a 30-year-old man was cleared of rape after the court found that the victim had not been subjected to "constraint, threat, violence or surprise."
In the other case, charges against a 28-year-old man, also accused of raping an 11-year-old girl, were downgraded to "sexual relations with a minor," according to French news agency AFP.
Schiappa said that the French President wanted to set the age of consent at 15 and she "had expressed the same preference on many occasions."

<https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/05/europe/france-age-of-consent-law-intl/index.html

Several misunderstandings of the French judicial system appear in that extract. Prosecutors must not prove the sexual act was forced for sex with a minor under 15 to be illegal. Sex with a minor under 15 is illegal, full stop.

However, that's not classified as rape, unless the usual criteria for that specific crime are met : use of force, intimidation, constraint or surprise. As a consequence the actual court where the crime is judged is not the same, and the maximum sentence is lower. In practice that's rather a good thing though, as for the crime of rape you get a trial by jury, and the bar for evidence means that rape cases have higher probabilities of ending up in acquittals. Most rape cases involving adults are tried as sexual assaults instead, with the accord of the victim, to avoid a trial by jury.

In the case of the 11 years old girls, the prosecutors screwed up big time, as it should be very easy to convince a jury that surprise or intimidation was involved.

CCGPV wrote:

Its still going to come down to the undecided voter. There's going to be a fight over a couple million votes just like always. There's not going to be this massive swing to the Democrats because of Trump. The same people will vote for their party just like always. If the economy holds up he will do well.

Nah, Trump didn´t become president by getting many voters, he just happend to get voters in the right states, and those where only a few. Less then two tenth of a percent need to vote differently to change the outcome, even if Trump can convince millions more to vote for him, a small shift in where the voters are will change the outcome.

Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election will give us another hint for voter movement and it could still be very bad news for the GOP even if they win, since it is about +20% red leaning.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election will give us another hint for voter movement and it could still be very bad news for the GOP even if they win, since it is about +20% red leaning.

Whoever wins will be dismissed immediately by both parties. The district the election is gonna happen in will not exist come May. Lamb lives in the northern part of the old district 18 so his house will be placed in the new district 17. Saccone lives in the southern part of district 18 which will become the new district 14 (which will be more GOP-friendly).

It's the psychological impact of the election what's gonna matter; the GOP can only hold their head high if Saccone achieves a victory in the upper single digits, low double digits. Everything else will be seen as a Democratic improvement as opposed to a GOP victory. It's sort of like Mark Pryor from AR: in 2008 he was elected unopposed, but in 2014 he was beaten. If that's not a sign of immediate GOP surge in AR, I don't know what is.

tommy1808 wrote:

Nah, Trump didn´t become president by getting many voters, he just happend to get voters in the right states,

best regards
Thomas

Google "electoral college"

NIKV69 wrote:

Google "electoral college"

Electoral College: a system of proportionally awarding votes to states based on population to elect the president and vice president of the United States.

What the Founding Fathers probably didn't count on was that states would routinely be ignored due to low number of votes and/or overwhelming support for a party election after election.

So yeah...it's now a contest of winning certain voters in certain states. The day all states are competitive and up for grabs, I'll agree with the notion of an Electoral College; in the meantime, it allows a handful of states to determine the election with the rest being ignored.

NIKV69 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

Nah, Trump didn´t become president by getting many voters, he just happend to get voters in the right states,

best regards
Thomas

Google "electoral college"

Well, i don´t need to google to have confirmed what i wrote, just very few votes need to move the state and the outcome is different.

Of course that explains why the funds to combat Russian interference remain untouched. It is too close to even pretend to care.

best regards
Thomas

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

CC’s (as per usual) flippant bloviations (in the veiled guise of being sanctimoniously “nonpartisan” when I highly doubt that could be farther from the truth) ignore any appreciation of the real determinants of elections today and that’s TURNOUT. Dems stayed home in 2016 and are paying the price.

Thus far in 2018 they have been wildly successful at winning races they wouldn’t normally come within single digits of winning in the past. That’s because enough Republicans are disgusted enough to stay home. CC is correct in that they won’t vote for Dems, but staying home is a tacit “vote” for Dems. We’ll see what happens with Conor Lamb.

Hey, maybe you are right. I certainly hope so.

What do you think my political beliefs are, by the way?

I think you are at least three different people. You have shown me at least that many different personalities. I mean, I get having different personas online. I accept everyone does. You do you. You don't need to hide. You are in a safe space. Look how long it says I have been a part of this site. It has been longer, I think.

Heaven forbid I don't run down the checklist of approved opinions of one group before I say something. People can have varied opinions about politics without being shoved into a box.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Hey, maybe you are right. I certainly hope so.

What do you think my political beliefs are, by the way?

I think you are at least three different people. You have shown me at least that many different personalities. I mean, I get having different personas online. I accept everyone does. You do you. You don't need to hide. You are in a safe space. Look how long it says I have been a part of this site. It has been longer, I think.

Heaven forbid I don't run down the checklist of approved opinions of one group before I say something. People can have varied opinions about politics without being shoved into a box.

CC that’s true.

But what is your grievance?

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I think you are at least three different people. You have shown me at least that many different personalities. I mean, I get having different personas online. I accept everyone does. You do you. You don't need to hide. You are in a safe space. Look how long it says I have been a part of this site. It has been longer, I think.

Heaven forbid I don't run down the checklist of approved opinions of one group before I say something. People can have varied opinions about politics without being shoved into a box.

CC that’s true.

But what is your grievance?

Grievance about what? I don't have any.

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

CC that’s true.

But what is your grievance?

Grievance about what? I don't have any.

Where are you from CC?

The good old USA.

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Grievance about what? I don't have any.

Where are you from CC?

The good old USA.

We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi.

So where are you from?

jetero wrote:

We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi.

That is a total "True Scotsman" argument (and fallacy).
I identify as being from "the good old USA" (because I am). How is that an issue and why?
I will also note this is off topic.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

jetero wrote:

We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi.

That is a total "True Scotsman" argument (and fallacy).
I identify as being from "the good old USA" (because I am). How is that an issue and why?
I will also note this is off topic.

Tugg

Tugg, being born somewhere is not a fallacy!

Deleted

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

Where are you from CC?

The good old USA.

We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi.

So where are you from?

I'm from and live in The South. I've lived in different locations in the USA at various times.

jetero wrote:

Tugger wrote:

jetero wrote:

We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi.

That is a total "True Scotsman" argument (and fallacy).
I identify as being from "the good old USA" (because I am). How is that an issue and why?
I will also note this is off topic.

Tugg

Tug, being born somewhere is not a fallacy!

Don't deflect. You stated "We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi."

That is implying that one that does not is not and cannot be such a person ("never").

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

jetero wrote:

Tugger wrote:

That is a total "True Scotsman" argument (and fallacy).
I identify as being from "the good old USA" (because I am). How is that an issue and why?
I will also note this is off topic.

Tugg

Tug, being born somewhere is not a fallacy!

Don't deflect. You stated "We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi."

That is implying that one that does not is not and cannot be such a person ("never").

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Tugg

Thanks for the link Tugg I shall read tomorrow when I can appreciate the meaning (am in MFM).

CCGPV wrote:

jetero wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

The good old USA.

We Americans from the South identify to where we were born, and we would never say we are from the USA. We would say we are from Texas, or Lousiana, Alabama, or Mississippi.

So where are you from?

I'm from and live in The South. I've lived in different locations in the USA at various times.

CC you are becoming more human! That makes me like you even more!

Revelation wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

In the end, most people who vote don't care about the sex lives of their leaders, they see it as a private matter...

I think that Drumpf being elected after his "you can grab them by the ******, they don't care" comments indicates that the electorate as a whole didn't care about Drumpfs womanizing. Same was true when Clinton got elected after open discussion of his various affairs, especially the infamous 60 minutes interview with Hillary. I'm sure in both cases the supporters wished their man was clean as the driven snow, but in both cases he wasn't, and the supporters just had to hold their noses and get on with it.

It's interesting to see the power gradient in both the Daniels and Lewinsky cases. Drumpf used his fame and wealth to get over on Daniels. Clinton used his power of office and employer/employee relationship to get over on Lewinsky. If we're judging sins, I'd say Clinton's is worse than Drumpfs. As a lawyer he should have known that workplace sex is a big no-no. What Drumph is doing is unethical but not illegal.

ltbewr wrote:

... and will vote more on economic issues that affect them.

That's one of the more interesting things about the 2016 campaign: it's pretty clear that the red state working class angry white old man demographic that got Drumph elected was not voting in a way to favor their economic interest, they voted based on the desire to reverse a bunch of perceived insults they feel they've suffered over the years.

The fact that the Dems trotted out an aging workhorse candidate with lots of baggage weighing her down helped them immensely. For instance any other candidate would not have had Bill Clinton's shadow over them. The fact that the could not find a younger candidate who could energize their base hurt tremendously. And guess what, they don't seem to be developing any such candidate now either.

seb146 wrote:

As long as he keeps telling everyone he is a Christian and Republican, his base does not care. He really could shoot some random person or people on 5th Ave and his base would throw a party for him and even set up a Go Fund Me page for his defense!

It is a mighty polarized world out there.

Affairs happen and as a society is isn't criminal for a reason as 50% of men and women are known to cheat in at least one relationship they have been in.

However the fact that Trump paid hush money and the possibility that is was campaign money (illegal) makes it far worse. We knew he was a sleazeball going in any everybody accepts that but the paying of hush money is the bad thing. Clinton lied under oath also but there should have never been an federal investigation into an affair to begin with.

apodino wrote:

I honestly think this is a non issue. Look, JFK cheated on Jackie and he is in the history books as one of the greatest presidents of our time. The same could be said about Bill Clinton. I don't doubt Trump has cheated on Melania. The precedent has been set for fitness for the office. While I personally think a president should have better morals than these three men, the truth is whether or not he had an affair with Stormy is not really going to have any impact on his ability to do the job.

That being said, if the hush money was paid for with campaign money, then that's a much bigger deal and that has all sorts of issues with it. If it was a member of congress, there would be an ethics investigation. Really there is no equivalent that congress can do with the president besides impeachment. Does this fit the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors as laid out by the constitution? I don't think so. But its still a big problem, and why we just need to get money out of politics altogether. Ban professional lobbying, and a salary cap on total campaign donations would be a start.

As long as Trump can sign the legislation congress spits out there will be no investigation into this or any of his antics. If he is no longer useful to congress then he will be turfed easily.

It really is the truth though in America if a democrat has an affair they have to go and the Republican it tends to be OK. If we circle back to Clinton, thank god Larry Flynt exposed Gingrich as to also being guilty of it.

wingman wrote:

Mueller just needs to follow Ken Starr's playbook. Fold Stormy into the Russia investigation just like Starr did with Monica and get Trump under oath. Then you ask as many sordid questions as you can possibly think of until Donald lies through his teeth. The man is a natural born con artist so it couldn't possibly take long to get to articles of impeachment. Based on the lack of tweety thumb action I'd say the man is shitting day-glo orange into his size 56 underpants right now. Stick this asshole with Shkreli. Make us proud again Bob!

Any attorney representing Trump is scared to death he goes under oath. He said he would talk to Mueller and his lawyers for his sake are keeping him quiet. Trump goes under oath he might leave in handcuffs and not impeachment which would be the easy way out.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Hey, maybe you are right. I certainly hope so.

What do you think my political beliefs are, by the way?

I think you are at least three different people. You have shown me at least that many different personalities. I mean, I get having different personas online. I accept everyone does. You do you. You don't need to hide. You are in a safe space. Look how long it says I have been a part of this site. It has been longer, I think.

Heaven forbid I don't run down the checklist of approved opinions of one group before I say something. People can have varied opinions about politics without being shoved into a box.

I have noticed that you are inconsistent. You go from a total and complete MAGA hat wearing tRumpette to "impeach the bas*ard" to "meh..." in the course of a day or two. That's all. Anyone can have those opinions. But when one person has all of them, I gotta ask how many people are there with that user name?

StarAC17 wrote:

apodino wrote:

I honestly think this is a non issue. Look, JFK cheated on Jackie and he is in the history books as one of the greatest presidents of our time. The same could be said about Bill Clinton. I don't doubt Trump has cheated on Melania. The precedent has been set for fitness for the office. While I personally think a president should have better morals than these three men, the truth is whether or not he had an affair with Stormy is not really going to have any impact on his ability to do the job.

That being said, if the hush money was paid for with campaign money, then that's a much bigger deal and that has all sorts of issues with it. If it was a member of congress, there would be an ethics investigation. Really there is no equivalent that congress can do with the president besides impeachment. Does this fit the bill of high crimes and misdemeanors as laid out by the constitution? I don't think so. But its still a big problem, and why we just need to get money out of politics altogether. Ban professional lobbying, and a salary cap on total campaign donations would be a start.

As long as Trump can sign the legislation congress spits out there will be no investigation into this or any of his antics. If he is no longer useful to congress then he will be turfed easily.

It really is the truth though in America if a democrat has an affair they have to go and the Republican it tends to be OK. If we circle back to Clinton, thank god Larry Flynt exposed Gingrich as to also being guilty of it.

Didn't Larry Flynt or someone offer $1,000,000 for information on tRump having an affair or something? I wonder if this is why Daniels came forward? She gives back the $130,000 in hush money and ends up ahead $870,000 and talks.

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I think you are at least three different people. You have shown me at least that many different personalities. I mean, I get having different personas online. I accept everyone does. You do you. You don't need to hide. You are in a safe space. Look how long it says I have been a part of this site. It has been longer, I think.

Heaven forbid I don't run down the checklist of approved opinions of one group before I say something. People can have varied opinions about politics without being shoved into a box.

I have noticed that you are inconsistent. You go from a total and complete MAGA hat wearing tRumpette to "impeach the bas*ard" to "meh..." in the course of a day or two. That's all. Anyone can have those opinions. But when one person has all of them, I gotta ask how many people are there with that user name?

Where have I ever been a MAGA idiot? I have never ever once been a cheerleader for Trump. You are quick to cast aspersions but never back it up.

The reason I have varied opinions is because each issue isn't a rubber stamp to hate or love Trump. Jesus, why is that so hard for you to understand?

Most things about the guy suck. Some things are decently acceptable. Very tiny amounts of things I agree with.

God forbid I look at things with an open mind. If that makes me "inconsistent" then I will proudly wear that banner.

MaverickM11 wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Are you that dull???

Trump was *not* an evangelical when the affair occurred. You imply that he was. You don't have your facts straight. You seem to want to imply that everything that Trump has ever done, was done as an evangelical. So save your false argument for others!!

Bless your heart dear for thinking Trump has changed—ever. I’ve never said Trump has changed—I’ve simply pointed out his greed, vengeance, narcissism, ignorance, and naked lack of morals has steadily inflated to the point that he’s finally sunk down to the level of evangelicals that worship him. Trump may not have been officially an evangelical when he was conning people to pay for his hookers, but his actions sure were—you guys deserve him. Really he’s the perfect leader—you guys decided one day he was one of you, and I couldn’t agree more. He always has been.

This just exposes how hollow these so-called ‘evangelicals’ values truly are. Nothing but hypocritical filth.

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

Heaven forbid I don't run down the checklist of approved opinions of one group before I say something. People can have varied opinions about politics without being shoved into a box.

I have noticed that you are inconsistent. You go from a total and complete MAGA hat wearing tRumpette to "impeach the bas*ard" to "meh..." in the course of a day or two. That's all. Anyone can have those opinions. But when one person has all of them, I gotta ask how many people are there with that user name?

Where have I ever been a MAGA idiot? I have never ever once been a cheerleader for Trump. You are quick to cast aspersions but never back it up.

The reason I have varied opinions is because each issue isn't a rubber stamp to hate or love Trump. Jesus, why is that so hard for you to understand?

Most things about the guy suck. Some things are decently acceptable. Very tiny amounts of things I agree with.

God forbid I look at things with an open mind. If that makes me "inconsistent" then I will proudly wear that banner.

This. This is what I mean by inconsistent. There were things that Obama did that I did not support. He really wanted TPP. I had to read about it, but I was against TPP after I understood it. I keep saying that Obama was not the greatest president ever but he was pretty good.

I have seen you, in a few threads, go from absolutely hating tRump to being head over heels for him. That makes me think there are different people on your end. The other person would have answered me calmly and rationally.

Very few people care that tRump diddled a porn star or that he cheated on his wives or that he visited ADULT Russian prostitutes. What we call him out on is he says he is a Christian. That Christians support him blindly. That he lied. That he paid off people to stay quiet about a lot of this stuff. THAT is what we are upset about.

On the lighter side, I scrolled past an article on some social media site saying that female porn actors are worried that tRump is giving them a bad reputation. I don't think it was the Onion but, these days, who knows?

seb146 wrote:

CCGPV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I have noticed that you are inconsistent. You go from a total and complete MAGA hat wearing tRumpette to "impeach the bas*ard" to "meh..." in the course of a day or two. That's all. Anyone can have those opinions. But when one person has all of them, I gotta ask how many people are there with that user name?

Where have I ever been a MAGA idiot? I have never ever once been a cheerleader for Trump. You are quick to cast aspersions but never back it up.

The reason I have varied opinions is because each issue isn't a rubber stamp to hate or love Trump. Jesus, why is that so hard for you to understand?

Most things about the guy suck. Some things are decently acceptable. Very tiny amounts of things I agree with.

God forbid I look at things with an open mind. If that makes me "inconsistent" then I will proudly wear that banner.

This. This is what I mean by inconsistent. There were things that Obama did that I did not support. He really wanted TPP. I had to read about it, but I was against TPP after I understood it. I keep saying that Obama was not the greatest president ever but he was pretty good.

I have seen you, in a few threads, go from absolutely hating tRump to being head over heels for him. That makes me think there are different people on your end. The other person would have answered me calmly and rationally.

Very few people care that tRump diddled a porn star or that he cheated on his wives or that he visited ADULT Russian prostitutes. What we call him out on is he says he is a Christian. That Christians support him blindly. That he lied. That he paid off people to stay quiet about a lot of this stuff. THAT is what we are upset about.

On the lighter side, I scrolled past an article on some social media site saying that female porn actors are worried that tRump is giving them a bad reputation. I don't think it was the Onion but, these days, who knows?

Yet again you offer no evidence of me being "head over heels" for Trump. I simply never have but you gloss over that every time and accuse me of being some group of people with differing opinions. However insane that is.

What do you want me to say about him courting the Christian audience? Its phony...he's always been a phony in that regard. I don't think anyone actually believes Jesus plays any role in Trump's life. This is pretty much well established here. Congratulations for just figuring this out.