advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: samintx
Date: January 12, 2018 05:47PM
[thehill.com]

This is an interesting development



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2018 05:51PM by samintx.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: Speedy
Date: January 12, 2018 11:40PM
Must be nice to have money.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: samintx
Date: January 13, 2018 06:03AM
I can't imagine sleeping with 45 would give you bragging rights.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: gabester
Date: January 13, 2018 08:19AM
It's not bragging rights. It's blackmail rights - this could have tanked him with the evangelicals before the election.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: pdq
Date: January 13, 2018 09:41AM
Quote
samintx
I can't imagine sleeping with 45 would give you bragging rights.

Apparently she was angling to be on The Apprentice.

Didn’t work, I guess.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: Acer
Date: January 13, 2018 09:44AM
Quote
gabester
It's not bragging rights. It's blackmail rights - this could have tanked him with the evangelicals before the election.

You'd think it would, but...
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: pdq
Date: January 13, 2018 11:28AM
Some more details.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: January 13, 2018 05:22PM
Quote
Acer
Quote
gabester
It's not bragging rights. It's blackmail rights - this could have tanked him with the evangelicals before the election.

You'd think it would, but...

Evangelical/practicing Catholic support for Trump has little to do with their opinions of his personal behavior. They seem to have made that deal with the devil where he's concerned - he comforts their fear of being forced to adhere to secular values, especially about same sex marriage and abortion. So as long as Trump supports the baker who doesn't want to make gay wedding cakes and the states trying to severely restrict access to reproductive health services, this voting bloc will stay with him.

But related to this - how on earth does this man have security clearance???
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: pdq
Date: January 13, 2018 08:53PM
Quote
Lemon Drop

But related to this - how on earth does this man have security clearance???

Good point. He, of course, would say that since he is POTUS, he (and only he) is the final arbiter of anyone’s security clearance.

Which is to say, if the Russians (or anyone else) really had the goods on him, it would be nobody’s business but his own.

I don’t agree with that, but I bet that’s what he’d say. Between Trump’s stunning assertion of basically dictatorial power, and the Republican’s dogged resistance to doing anything about it, this presidency has brought up all sorts of “what if” scenarios that need to be addressed in the future, frankly.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: gabester
Date: January 14, 2018 01:10AM
Quote
pdq
this presidency has brought up all sorts of “what if” scenarios that need to be addressed in the future, frankly.

They need to be addressed before the future.

I think it's time for a new constitutional convention... draft two; one for those who want to adhere to the old one and those who want a Christian Theocracy for White People Who Like Guns.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: Dennis S
Date: January 14, 2018 11:45AM
Quote
gabester
Quote
pdq
this presidency has brought up all sorts of “what if” scenarios that need to be addressed in the future, frankly.

They need to be addressed before the future.

I think it's time for a new constitutional convention... draft two; one for those who want to adhere to the old one and those who want a Christian Theocracy for White People Who Like Guns.

The Koch Brothers are behind this very thing.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: 130K paid porn star in 2016 for 2006 encounter
Posted by: Ted King
Date: January 14, 2018 12:14PM
Quote
Dennis S
Quote
gabester
Quote
pdq
this presidency has brought up all sorts of “what if” scenarios that need to be addressed in the future, frankly.

They need to be addressed before the future.

I think it's time for a new constitutional convention... draft two; one for those who want to adhere to the old one and those who want a Christian Theocracy for White People Who Like Guns.

The Koch Brothers are behind this very thing.

Are you talking about an Article 5 Constitutional Convention? If so, I'm not sure how much of an advantage that would be over just trying to go the "regular" amendment to the Constitution route. Besides, right now with a large majority of state governments controlled by Republicans, any such Constitutional Convention that would be called would probably not deal with issues that Democrats would like to see dealt with.

I think some things can be addressed with laws. For example, there should be a law that requires candidates for federal office to release their tax returns (so we can see if they have conflicts of interest). After the president picks a candidate for Attorney General and that person is confirmed by the Senate, there should be laws that severely restrict how the president can interact with the AG and the rest of the DOJ (I'm sure there are laws already in place, but they need to be beefed up considerably.) It might be difficult, but I also think there is a legal formula that can be cooked up to make it harder for a president to decide to push the nuclear button without some kind of check.

For a long time, norms that didn't have legal status were sufficient to keep things from getting out of hand. But Trump has shown the weakness in relying on norms. I'm not saying we have to turn every norm into a law, but there are some things (like mentioned above) that I think are important enough to make laws where norms used to suffice.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2018 12:16PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 268
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 847 on February 04, 2015