Trump Lawyer Arranged $130K Hush Money to Keep Porn Star Quiet

[TitanTiger 20,472]

In fact, let's start with this latest hairball you've coughed upon the AUF forums.

How does Hillary's book or Wolff's book on Trump being about making the author $$$ make O'Reilly's claims in Killing Reagan more credible?

[homersapien 11,358]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

My goodness how incompetent. Does this apply to legislatures and judges as well? If not, why? 

Better yet, if I support Ben Roethlisberger as a qb, do I also support rape?

I mean heck I bet obama would be fun to grab a beer with but his presidency sucked bigly.

"Incompetent"?   

That's ironic. Especially considering the rest of your post. 

But I can see why you love Trump, you have a lot in common.  

 

[homersapien 11,358]

5 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

You must live among some different "evangelicals" than I do in Auburn. Few if any of my Christian friends voted for Trump in the primary. My wife and I both voted for Ben Carson. But in the Nov. election it was an easy choice. Trump for what he is or crooked Hillary. Thank goodness Trump won. In spite off his faults he is doing a good job and doing well at keeping his promises. JMHO.

Figures. 

You voted for the one candidate that was even more absurd than Trump.   

[homersapien 11,358]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

 Titan don't like them because it often weakens his position and hence don't sit well with him.

"Titan don't like them"?     (We need a "cringe" icon.)

[homersapien 11,358]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So my point stands.

Hahaha did you read every single article or just do a quick google search and view headlines?

 Is this how you reinforce your notion? What if I do a similar google search and find just as many or more rebuttal articles? 

Yeah, your point stands. Trump hasn't been convicted in the Court of Psychology.  Oh wait...... that doesn't exist does it?  All we've got to go on is observation and professional opinion.

And don't ask me "what if you do a similar search and find just as many or more articles rebutting this opinion".  

Just do it.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

If it only happened once in a blue moon maybe I would.  But if you have a dozen arrows in your argumentative quiver, 10 of them are made up of whataboutism.  It gets old.  You're not a stupid person and you could do better.  

"The greatest discovery of any generation is that human beings can alter their lives by altering the attitudes of their minds."----Albert Schweitzer. Guess we should both keep that in mind.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Incompetent"?   

That's ironic. Especially considering the rest of your post. 

But I can see why you love Trump, you have a lot in common.  

 

Good job avoiding an answer 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, your point stands. Trump hasn't been convicted in the Court of Psychology.  Oh wait...... that doesn't exist does it?  All we've got to go on is observation and professional opinion.

And don't ask me "what if you do a similar search and find just as many or more articles rebutting this opinion".  

Just do it.  

So you’re honestly holding, this very moment, that Trump has a mental disorder?

and next time, read your links first hahahaha. Watch out everybody. Staggering march of 100 “professionals”

 

[SaltyTiger 7,782]

34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

So you’re honestly holding, this very moment, that Trump has a mental disorder?

 

Well Nola, that is what 100 of the "Professionals" think that felt the need to march in NY. One of Homers links

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/355490-psychologists-march-through-ny-to-call-for-trumps-removal

love to see a good ole "leftest march"

[DKW 86 7,419]

21 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

You mean like Hillary's book and the one by Wolff about Trump?

HRC, definitely. Wolf, I ll have to do some more research on that.  

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

42 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

HRC, definitely. Wolf, I ll have to do some more research on that.  

I'll let you do the research but it has been widely discredited.

[Grumps 3,704]

On 3/7/2018 at 10:31 PM, ShocksMyBrain said:

I’ve always appreciated your level-headedness. Presuming you voted for Trump, would you have voted for him if you had prior knowledge of his dealings with this particular porn star? Obviously we had “grab her by the *****” on video prior to the election, and that didn’t stop some. 

Not singling you out here, but I find this wild hypocrisy by some here(and elsewhere)in making excuses for his disgusting behavior pretty disturbing. 

I just want to know where the line in the sand is.

 

I did not vote for Trump in the primary and almost did not vote for him in the general election. I never thought he is a man of high moral character. I doubt that the porn star issue would have changed anything. I would still know he is of low character.

There is NO WAY I would have voted for Mrs. Clinton. Maybe I am falling victim to Fox News or whatever right wing source people want to credit, but I think that the biggest threat to the U.S. as I know it is for the non-working able bodied people to control the voting booth. I think that when the baby boomers retire that there may not be enough people paying taxes to fund our country. I have not looked at the number, so I may be way off base, but I think it is a real concern.

I think that the economy is incredibly important, and I think that conservative principles, if there are any left, are more likely to make our economy prosper. If U.S. citizens who want to work can find a good job then the country cannot be THAT bad. If good jobs are not available then the country cannot be that good.

With the two legitimate choice I had for POTUS, I made the only choice I could justify--vote for the scumbag who is more likely than the other scumbag to move the country in the direction that I want it to go. I almost wrote in the name of a really good man, but I didn't. I can live with that.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Some of our forum found Jesus. Hallelujah!

[alexava 6,973]

5 hours ago, Grumps said:

I did not vote for Trump in the primary and almost did not vote for him in the general election. I never thought he is a man of high moral character. I doubt that the porn star issue would have changed anything. I would still know he is of low character.

There is NO WAY I would have voted for Mrs. Clinton. Maybe I am falling victim to Fox News or whatever right wing source people want to credit, but I think that the biggest threat to the U.S. as I know it is for the non-working able bodied people to control the voting booth. I think that when the baby boomers retire that there may not be enough people paying taxes to fund our country. I have not looked at the number, so I may be way off base, but I think it is a real concern.

I think that the economy is incredibly important, and I think that conservative principles, if there are any left, are more likely to make our economy prosper. If U.S. citizens who want to work can find a good job then the country cannot be THAT bad. If good jobs are not available then the country cannot be that good.

With the two legitimate choice I had for POTUS, I made the only choice I could justify--vote for the scumbag who is more likely than the other scumbag to move the country in the direction that I want it to go. I almost wrote in the name of a really good man, but I didn't. I can live with that.

Able bodied people who don’t work are a very minuscule part of the problem. That’s not even what trump campaigned on. 

[Grumps 3,704]

10 hours ago, alexava said:

Able bodied people who don’t work are a very minuscule part of the problem. That’s not even what trump campaigned on. 

I mostly agree with you, and I probably should have said "people who are more interested in getting things FROM the government rather than contributing things TO the government."

We probably disagree on "the problem."

My feelings have nothing to do with what Trump campaigned on. I have NO doubt that Trump is MORE LIKELY (though not very likely) to be for a smaller government with more people contributing to it and less people drawing from it.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

I have NO doubt that Trump is MORE LIKELY (though not very likely) to be for a smaller government with more people contributing to it and less people drawing from it.

As should any CIC.  POTUS.

[homersapien 11,358]

14 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

As should any CIC.

You mean Commander In Chief?

What does a president's military role have to do with wanting "a smaller government with more people contributing to it and less people drawing from it" ?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You mean Commander In Chief?

What does a president's military role have to do with wanting "a smaller government with more people contributing to it and less people drawing from it" ?

LOL. Blame it on the bourbon. Post 18 partaking. 

[homersapien 11,358]

On 3/8/2018 at 7:33 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Good job avoiding an answer 

Answer to what? 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Answer to what? 

“Does this apply to legislatures and judges as well? If not, why?”

“Better yet, if I support Ben Roethlisberger as a qb, do I also support rape?”

The ones you avoided. 

 

[homersapien 11,358]

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

“Does this apply to legislatures and judges as well? If not, why?”

“Better yet, if I support Ben Roethlisberger as a qb, do I also support rape?”

The ones you avoided. 

 

Does what apply?

The second question about rape is absurdly specious.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Does what apply?

The second question about rape is absurdly specious.

The logic you used in the statement below. 

On 3/8/2018 at 8:27 AM, homersapien said:

Trump is his presidency.    Making a distinction between Trump and his "presidency" is nothing more than a way to rationalize supporting him regardless of who and what he is.

Does it apply to legislature and judges? If I support the passing of  a law, do i then condone all the private acts of legislatures who were in favor of the law? If I support a court ruling, must I also support the personal acts of the one who issued the ruling? If not then why?

If I support Ben Roethlisberger in his capacity as a quarterback, do I also support his personal acts - such as rape or sexual assault? If I supported Mike Vick as a qb, then do I also support animal cruelty? If not then why?

Why is it that you maintain that if one is in support of Trump's presidency, that equates to a support of his personal actions? 

 

 

[homersapien 11,358]

9 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The logic you used in the statement below. 

Does it apply to legislature and judges? If I support the passing of  a law, do i then condone all the private acts of legislatures who were in favor of the law? If I support a court ruling, must I also support the personal acts of the one who issued the ruling? If not then why?

If I support Ben Roethlisberger in his capacity as a quarterback, do I also support his personal acts - such as rape or sexual assault? If I supported Mike Vick as a qb, then do I also support animal cruelty? If not then why?

Why is it that you maintain that if one is in support of Trump's presidency, that equates to a support of his personal actions? 

 

 

Because Trump's "personal" actions are the same as his presidential actions.   Everything he does as president eminates from his personal character. Every proclamation he makes, every decision he makes is a direct product of his personality and character.

His tweets provide all the proof one needs to see this.

I totally get what you are trying to do by rationalizing a distinction between Trump the individual and Trump the president, but no such distinction exists.

[homersapien 11,358]

On 3/9/2018 at 5:29 PM, Grumps said:

I did not vote for Trump in the primary and almost did not vote for him in the general election. I never thought he is a man of high moral character. I doubt that the porn star issue would have changed anything. I would still know he is of low character.

There is NO WAY I would have voted for Mrs. Clinton. Maybe I am falling victim to Fox News or whatever right wing source people want to credit, but I think that the biggest threat to the U.S. as I know it is for the non-working able bodied people to control the voting booth. I think that when the baby boomers retire that there may not be enough people paying taxes to fund our country. I have not looked at the number, so I may be way off base, but I think it is a real concern.

I think that the economy is incredibly important, and I think that conservative principles, if there are any left, are more likely to make our economy prosper. If U.S. citizens who want to work can find a good job then the country cannot be THAT bad. If good jobs are not available then the country cannot be that good.

With the two legitimate choice I had for POTUS, I made the only choice I could justify--vote for the scumbag who is more likely than the other scumbag to move the country in the direction that I want it to go. I almost wrote in the name of a really good man, but I didn't. I can live with that.

It was "conservative principles" that brought us the great recession of 2008.  And we are apparently on track to repeat them.

And your concern for implications of inadequate tax revenue is ironic considered from the perspective of "conservative" politics.   

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Because Trump's "personal" actions are the same as his presidential actions.   Everything he does as president eminates from his personal character. Every proclamation he makes, every decision he makes is a direct product of his personality and character.

His tweets provide all the proof one needs to see this.

I totally get what you are trying to do by rationalizing a distinction between Trump the individual and Trump the president, but no such distinction exists.

No they are not. Your first sentence automatically fails because the majority of personal actions you consider, including the main thrust of this thread, are actions that took place before he was president. Thus, intuitively and by default, you've exaggerated the bounds of your claim already. 

What is in bold is perhaps your most absurd statement. Everything the executive does doesn't arise from his personal character. Executive decisions, first and foremost, arise from the Constitution. The Constitution places limits on said action. Personal character plays a role, but not nearly to the extent you purport. Your semantics possess further evidence of how objectively irrational and oversimplified your assertion is. It's illogical because it necessarily assumes that executive action and decision-making doesn't involve assent conditioned on compromise of other parties, including other governmental figures. Lastly, your elementary statement is a disgrace to democracy, among other characterizations/conclusions.

In no way can you articulate what you're saying in a reasonable way. 

You cannot even begin to address my questions because they cause your premise to fail, and you know it. Again, to say that one who supports the Executive necessarily supports his personal actions is truly a flawed statement.  

If you want, you can just tip your cap and move on. I won’t embarrass you any further.