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

[AUUSN 823]

 

[homersapien 11,387]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

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.

 

I can always tell when you are digging yourself deeper, you get a lot more verbose (and insulting). 

The elemental problem with Trump is that his personality informs his every action.  That was true before he became president and it's certainly true after.

Again, anyone who is not emotionally invested in Trump by projecting on to him what they want to see - instead of what they can simply observe - understands this. 

His 'presidential' tweets are the most illustrative, but it is certainly reflected in the instinctive, non-contemplative way he blurts out major policy initiatives such as tariffs or meeting with Kim Jong Un.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 3/7/2018 at 9:36 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

You support his Presidency and I do as well. That doesn't equate to a celebration of his bad acts. Why people can't see past that is truly baffling. 

 

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.

 

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I can always tell when you are digging yourself deeper, you get a lot more verbose (and insulting). 

The elemental problem with Trump is that his personality informs his every action.  That was true before he became president and it's certainly true after.

Again, anyone who is not emotionally invested in Trump by projecting on to him what they want to see - instead of what they can simply observe - understands this. 

His 'presidential' tweets are the most illustrative, but it is certainly reflected in the instinctive, non-contemplative way he blurts out major policy initiatives such as tariffs or meeting with Kim Jong Un.

You make utterly inept assertions that cannot be backed and yet somehow I'm digging myself "deeper?" For the love of Auburn, why can't you answer a single question I pose? 

You're trying to make a correlation that doesn't exist. 

Let's take adultery. If I support President Trump, do I also support his infidelity?  

I've also posted previous statements to provide context for the absurdity you're attempting to saturate this thread with. 

[homersapien 11,387]

19 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

 

 

You make utterly inept assertions that cannot be backed and yet somehow I'm digging myself "deeper?" For the love of Auburn, why can't you answer a single question I pose? 

You're trying to make a correlation that doesn't exist. 

Let's take adultery. If I support President Trump, do I also support his infidelity?  

I've also posted previous statements to provide context for the absurdity you're attempting to saturate this thread with. 

Says the guy who compared the presidency to playing quarterback.  

The president is suppose to lead and represent the country.  It's not a job like a mechanic.  You can have a great mechanic who's molests children and he's still a great mechanic.  The presidency is not like that.

Every consideration that Trump makes as president is informed by his character and personality - and he's a narcissistic huckster with a borderline personality disorder.  One cannot simply say that is not relevant to the job of presidency.

You are twisting basic common sense like a pretzel in order to justify your support for such a sick individual.  It would be amusing if you weren't so sincere. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The president is suppose to lead and represent the country.  It's not a job like a mechanic.  You can have a great mechanic who's molests children and he's still a great mechanic.  The presidency is not like that.

You've yet to provide a basis for the distinction other than, "because Homer says so." What happens when your logic is turned on its face? Let's say I support Barack the "individual," based primarily off of observable personal action, but not the Barack in his Executive capacity. By default, does my disdain of Barack as Executive thwart my claim to support Barack the individual? Hell, I could've had lunch with the man for all you know.

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Every consideration that Trump makes as president is informed by his character and personality - and he's a narcissistic huckster with a borderline personality disorder.  One cannot simply say that is not relevant to the job of presidency.

But this doesn't translate in a pragmatic sense. If I support the appointment of a Justice, by way of the Executive exercising Constitutional authority, why does that mean I also support the personal flaws of the individual as well? This doesn't make sense at all. 

No one claimed irrelevance. Now your effectively trying to change what's been said. I said it plays a role, but not nearly to the extent you purport. It isn't elevated to level of necessary inclusion that you're trying to assert. 

34 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are twisting basic common sense like a pretzel in order to justify your support for such a sick individual.  It would be amusing if you weren't so sincere. 

That's simply not true because your criticizing carries with it the false notion that I support "the individual" and not just the "individual as Executive." I mean good grief you cannot even make a feasible insult. 

Since you won't offer an intellectually satisfying answer to anything, perhaps this will be a better question for you: what personal acts of Trump would you maintain, by default, I automatically support by operation of my support for his presidency? 

[homersapien 11,387]

On 3/13/2018 at 11:55 AM, NolaAuTiger said:

You've yet to provide a basis for the distinction other than, "because Homer says so." What happens when your logic is turned on its face? Let's say I support Barack the "individual," based primarily off of observable personal action, but not the Barack in his Executive capacity. By default, does my disdain of Barack as Executive thwart my claim to support Barack the individual? Hell, I could've had lunch with the man for all you know.

But this doesn't translate in a pragmatic sense. If I support the appointment of a Justice, by way of the Executive exercising Constitutional authority, why does that mean I also support the personal flaws of the individual as well? This doesn't make sense at all. 

No one claimed irrelevance. Now your effectively trying to change what's been said. I said it plays a role, but not nearly to the extent you purport. It isn't elevated to level of necessary inclusion that you're trying to assert. 

That's simply not true because your criticizing carries with it the false notion that I support "the individual" and not just the "individual as Executive." I mean good grief you cannot even make a feasible insult. 

Since you won't offer an intellectually satisfying answer to anything, perhaps this will be a better question for you: what personal acts of Trump would you maintain, by default, I automatically support by operation of my support for his presidency? 

Every act that would naturally be elevated to the level of necessary inclusion.

In other words, everything that Trump does reflects on his performance as president.  Everything.

The latest - although  I haven't checked the news yet - is firing Tillerson via a tweet.  That's a perfect example of Trump as president.  He cares more about instant personal gratification than he does anything else, including the people who work for him - much less the country as a whole.  He has the emotional maturity of a two year old.  

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

Every act that would naturally be elevated to the level of necessary inclusion.

In other words, everything that Trump does reflects on his performance as president.  Everything.

The latest - although  I haven't checked the news yet - is firing Tillerson via a tweet.  That's a perfect example of Trump as president.  He cares more about instant personal gratification than he does anything else, including the people who work for him - much less the country as a whole.  He has the emotional maturity of a two year old.  

 

 

You’re not getting to the root of the issue at all. The conversation you subjected your insight into was about supporting his presidency, while not supporting- at the same time - his bad acts (a proposition you objected to) For example, cheating on his wife or divorce. Salty can support Trump’s Presidency without also supporting Trump’s adultery. Scroll up and look at what I said to Salty before your senseless statement came into play.

[homersapien 11,387]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You’re not getting to the root of the issue at all. The conversation you subjected your insight into was about supporting his presidency, while not supporting- at the same time - his bad acts (a proposition you objected to) For example, cheating on his wife or divorce. Salty can support Trump’s Presidency without also supporting Trump’s adultery. Scroll up and look at what I said to Salty before your senseless statement came into play.

I don't give a s*** about his divorces or his sexual escapades while married.  Those are merely symptoms of his overriding psychological handicaps, which do concern me.  He's a narcissistic, self-promoting, lying, huckster with psychopathic tendencies - probably a borderline personality disorder.

And I am not impressed with any of his so called accomplishments, most of which will create long term harm for the country.  That's the "root of the issue". 

But you are free to keep rationalizing to your heart's content. I find it amusing.  (Oh, and you forgot the gratuitous insult. I find those amusing also.)

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't give a s*** about his divorces or his sexual escapades while married.  Those are merely symptoms of his overriding psychological handicaps, which do concern me.  He's a narcissistic, self-promoting, lying, huckster with psychopathic tendencies - probably a borderline personality disorder.

And I am not impressed with any of his so called accomplishments, most of which will create long term harm for the country.  That's the "root of the issue". 

But you are free to keep rationalizing to your heart's content. I find it amusing.  (Oh, and you forgot the gratuitous insult. I find those amusing also.)

I don't give a damn what concerns you or not, Homer. What do you not understand about this conversation? One can support Trump's presidency without necessarily supporting his personal actions. 

This isn't about your perception of Trump, halfwit. It's about the notion that support of the Executive doesn't require one to also support the Executive's personal actions - in this case actions such as adultery (after all, you made the absurd statement that his personal actions are his executive actions). The assertion that you have so poorly articulated reads as if one supports Trump's Presidency, they also support ALL of his personal actions. Again, you've yet to affirm any distinction whatsoever about President's personal actions and those in his capacity as Executive - and you're wrong. Again, one can support Trump's presidency while also not supporting his personal actions (such as divorce, among other things). 

[homersapien 11,387]

4 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I don't give a damn what concerns you or not, Homer. What do you not understand about this conversation? One can support Trump's presidency without necessarily supporting his personal actions. 

This isn't about your perception of Trump, halfwit. It's about the notion that support of the Executive doesn't require one to also support the Executive's personal actions - in this case actions such as adultery (after all, you made the absurd statement that his personal actions are his executive actions). The assertion that you have so poorly articulated reads as if one supports Trump's Presidency, they also support ALL of his personal actions. Again, you've yet to affirm any distinction whatsoever about President's personal actions and those in his capacity as Executive - and you're wrong. Again, one can support Trump's presidency while also not supporting his personal actions (such as divorce, among other things). 

Your responses suggest otherwise.  

And I see we are back to the yadda yadda "halfwit" yadda yadda stage.  

But that's an amusing line of rationalization you've got going: Trump's actions as potus are completely divorced from who he is psychologically and intellectually.   

That would be your classic dual personality,  or "Dissociative Identity Disorder"  (Multiple personality disorder) as it's more properly known. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your responses suggest otherwise.  

And I see we are back to the yadda yadda "halfwit" yadda yadda stage.  

But that's an amusing line of rationalization you've got going.  Trump's actions as potus are completely divorced from who he is psychologically and intellectually.   

That would be your classic dual personality,  or "Dissociative Identity Disorder"  (Multiple personality disorder) as it's more properly known.

Holy crap dude. Why won't you address the matter? I said that Salty supports Trump's presidency, and that doesn't require him to to support Trump's actions, including his personal failures (be it divorce or adultery). You took dispute. You've offered nothing in terms of justification. I asked about hypotheticals (mike vick for example) and you basically punted. 

I'm going to ask one more simple question. Please answer it: If I support Trump's presidency, do I also support his former acts of adultery? 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

So back on topic.  Doesn't Trump's personal lawyers joining this lawsuit and arguing that she broke confidentiality effectively admit that an affair was happening?  You can't argue that there was nothing there to begin with and then say she broke confidentiality.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

So back on topic.  Doesn't Trump's personal lawyers joining this lawsuit and arguing that she broke confidentiality effectively admit that an affair was happening?  You can't argue that there was nothing there to begin with and then say she broke confidentiality.

Yep, might have been an affair 13 years ago. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yep, might have been an affair 13 years ago. 

I'm not saying his having an affair has any effect on his presidency.  But it is another chunk in his armor with regards to his handling of the truth since he vehemently denied it happening altogether.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

43 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I'm not saying his having an affair has any effect on his presidency.  But it is another chunk in his armor with regards to his handling of the truth since he vehemently denied it happening altogether.

Yep. Understood. Just throwing a little friendly jest. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,151]

NolaAuTiger is basically saying separate the man and his individual failings from what he has accomplished or failed to accomplish as the Executive. Bill Clinton when it came to personal morals like Trump seems to have had the morals of an Alley Cat. All the bad things Clinton did were basically ignored because he was likeable and actually was a decent President. I didn't vote for Clinton but when I reflect on his Presidency he was able to work with people across the aisle, he was our last President to balance the budget.  

Lets try and judge Trumps Presidency the same way. If you support some of his accomplishments or are critical of them that is OK. I liked his Supreme court nomination a very qualified conservative the type of conservative any other Republican would have nominated. I basically liked his new Tax policy but I thought there were flaws in it. I approved of his overriding of Obama's Executive Order over the Dreamers but I wish he would get Republicans and Democrats to really address the Dreamers in the legislature as they should. I do believe they need some level of protection. I am ambivalent on the border wall and wish that the border wall and Dreamers were addressed as separate issues but I realize that is how deals have always been done in DC. The budget that Ryan just proposed and that Trump supports is bloated.  I agree with many of the regulations he has removed or stopped from being implemented.

I am sad that nothing has been done about healthcare in this country under Trump not all his fault as he has a fractured party and democrats wouldn't help him even if they agreed with him. I didn't vote for Trump or Hilary but that was a cop out to be honest. because I am in Texas I knew Trump would win so by not voting for Trump I knew it would have no impact. If the race had been close in Texas I would have voted for Trump over Hilary because I thought her flaws were worse than Trumps.

[AUDub 11,153]

My God. Giuliani tonight. 

Did the dude actually pass the bar? Tonight’s performance leaves me wondering whether the guy could pass a driver’s test. 

[TexasTiger 12,948]

On 3/22/2018 at 9:30 AM, AuburnNTexas said:

NolaAuTiger is basically saying separate the man and his individual failings from what he has accomplished or failed to accomplish as the Executive. Bill Clinton when it came to personal morals like Trump seems to have had the morals of an Alley Cat. All the bad things Clinton did were basically ignored because he was likeable and actually was a decent President. I didn't vote for Clinton but when I reflect on his Presidency he was able to work with people across the aisle, he was our last President to balance the budget.  

Lets try and judge Trumps Presidency the same way. If you support some of his accomplishments or are critical of them that is OK. I liked his Supreme court nomination a very qualified conservative the type of conservative any other Republican would have nominated. I basically liked his new Tax policy but I thought there were flaws in it. I approved of his overriding of Obama's Executive Order over the Dreamers but I wish he would get Republicans and Democrats to really address the Dreamers in the legislature as they should. I do believe they need some level of protection. I am ambivalent on the border wall and wish that the border wall and Dreamers were addressed as separate issues but I realize that is how deals have always been done in DC. The budget that Ryan just proposed and that Trump supports is bloated.  I agree with many of the regulations he has removed or stopped from being implemented.

I am sad that nothing has been done about healthcare in this country under Trump not all his fault as he has a fractured party and democrats wouldn't help him even if they agreed with him. I didn't vote for Trump or Hilary but that was a cop out to be honest. because I am in Texas I knew Trump would win so by not voting for Trump I knew it would have no impact. If the race had been close in Texas I would have voted for Trump over Hilary because I thought her flaws were worse than Trumps.

Democrats would’ve helped Trump on healthcare if they agreed with him.

[AuburnNTexas 7,151]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Democrats would’ve helped Trump on healthcare if they agreed with him.

I would like to think you are correct but sadly I am seeing the same scorched earth Policy from Democrats to hurt Trump and Republicans as I saw from the Republicans to hurt Obama and the Democrats. Both parties seem to worry more about getting themselves elected than helping the country. There are a few individuals in both parties that I believe stand on their principals but sadly most are not.

[TexasTiger 12,948]

8 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I would like to think you are correct but sadly I am seeing the same scorched earth Policy from Democrats to hurt Trump and Republicans as I saw from the Republicans to hurt Obama and the Democrats. Both parties seem to worry more about getting themselves elected than helping the country. There are a few individuals in both parties that I believe stand on their principals but sadly most are not.

If you had followed that actual process more closely you would see what I was talking about. Schumer and Pelosi definitely wanted to work with Trump on key issues. In fact, he made promises and reneged.

[AUDub 11,153]

A thread:

Somebody needs to gag Rudy.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Regarding Cohen, THIS is why I always say "we don't know what Mueller knows".  Apparently Cohen's phones have been tapped for quite a while.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/feds-tapped-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-phones/ar-AAwHyav?ocid=spartanntp

 

[DKW 86 7,426]

5 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I would like to think you are correct but sadly I am seeing the same scorched earth Policy from Democrats to hurt Trump and Republicans as I saw from the Republicans to hurt Obama and the Democrats. Both parties seem to worry more about getting themselves elected than helping the country. There are a few individuals in both parties that I believe stand on their principals but sadly most are not.

Neither one of these parties would piss on the other if they were on fire. The idea that the Dems would support Trump, or basically any Republican on any issue is just laughable. As far as the deal, it was just Trump bailing first. There was zero chance of any deal. The Republicans? They are absolutely just as bad when Obama was in office. it is indeed scorched earth from both camps.

[RunInRed 16,430]

 

[HVAU 673]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Neither one of these parties would piss on the other if they were on fire. The idea that the Dems would support Trump, or basically any Republican on any issue is just laughable. As far as the deal, it was just Trump bailing first. There was zero chance of any deal. The Republicans? They are absolutely just as bad when Obama was in office. it is indeed scorched earth from both camps.

I can't help but disagree with you on this one.  Democrats thought they had concessions from Trump on DACA and had made concessions of their own.  Obviously, we can't know how the Congressional votes would have been tallied, but a survey of the left leaning spectrum of the media indicated reluctant support.  What blew the deal up were the right wing idealogues, like Miller, that were manipulating Trump to stay the course for "the base".

Adding: I just realized you were specifically in the healthcare subject.  I may have confused which negotiation was which.