- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 39,109
- Reaction score
- 9,764
"When you're a star, they let you do it."
And like everything else he says, dont take it seriously.
"When you're a star, they let you do it."
Once again, that takes time and in the mean time she can spout whatever she wants to whichever outlet will shove a mic in her face. This way she gets her money and they get a NDA, or at least do in most cases, and they move on with their business.Trump has lawyers on retainer - he doesn't personally need to spend any time or hassle to fight an unsubstantiated claim.
If the claim was completely untrue, he would've sued the fuck out of her for libel.
But if that person was lying to begin with and you still paid them, then there is always the chance that it will come back regardless. Just doesn't seem practical unless there's an ounce of truth to it.If your in the the process of an election run it's faster, easier and less of a potential PR nightmare to throw money at it then take the time to break the accusation down. Companies and individuals do this all the time.
No idea, probably all of them. Maybe none of them. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe it's something we should care about, most likely its not.But if that person was lying to begin with and you still paid them, then there is always the chance that it will come back regardless. Just doesn't seem practical unless there's an ounce of truth to it.
If there's no way of verifying the information, then it'll just stay another gossipy tabloid rumor.
Has Trump ever paid off any of his accusers?
And like everything else he says, dont take it seriously.
Tell that to the droves of leftists that are still crying about "grab em by the pussy".
This story is tabloid level garbage.
...or he didn't do it but paid anyway just to shut her up before the election. Much like many rich men do when it's easier to throw money at a problem than go through the time, hassle and pr issues of proving your innocence.
Not sure if he did either way, but I always love reading how quick so many are here to believe anything negative about the guy. Maybe someone will come out with an unsubstantiated claim that he eats babies and you can rub one out to that too.
A lawyer for President Donald Trump arranged a $130,000 payment to a former adult-film star a month before the 2016 election as part of an agreement that precluded her from publicly discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the matter.
Michael Cohen, who spent nearly a decade as a top attorney at the Trump Organization, arranged payment to the woman, Stephanie Clifford, in October 2016 after her lawyer negotiated the nondisclosure agreement with Mr. Cohen, these people said.
Ms. Clifford, whose stage name is Stormy Daniels, has privately alleged the encounter with Mr. Trump took place after they met at a July 2006 celebrity golf tournament in Lake Tahoe, these people said. Mr. Trump married Melania Trump in 2005.
I can’t wait for his “spiritual advisers” to tell us how Christian this is.
Ever do something you said you'd never do?you mean like Trump has said he never, ever does because it open you to more people doing the same?
Ever do something you said you'd never do?
Never mind, rhetorical question. I really don't care about the answer because I don't care if he did or didn't.
Why is there an expectation that Evangelicals require their candidate to be a paragon of virtue if he's addressing what concerns them personally, or at least paying it lip service?i dont even really hate trump for banging a pornstar for 130k. i think he overpayed by alot, but that happens. it is important to recognize for all the evangelical values voters though. not that i think they will ever be honest about anything trump related.
That's a silly comparison though. One group you mention here cares about issues that effect them and the religious thing is just identity politics.Why is there an expectation that Evangelicals require their candidate to be a paragon of virtue if he's addressing what concerns them personally, or at least paying it lip service?
I think they're pretty much like anyone else and weigh what they might have to gain by backing the person. Granted it's easy to talk the talk and hit all the keywords to draw a demographics attention. With Evangelicals its abortion, religious freedom (as it applies to Christianity), etc...
Pretty much the same with Latinos... talk up amnesty, immigration, etc.
Youth...talk up tuition fees, universal healthcare, wealth redistribution, etc...
Rinse repeat with your demographic of choice and their favorite buzz words.
Would you say that about Muslims? Is it just identity politics for them? If not, how are their concerns any different from a Christian if both feel persecuted for their believes or want to see more deference for that belief?That's a silly comparison though. One group you mention here cares about issues that effect them and the religious thing is just identity politics.
If someone was pandering to Muslims of course I would say that.Would you say that about Muslims? Is it just identity politics for them? If not, how are their concerns any different from a Christian if both feel persecuted for their believes or want to see more deference for that belief?
Both Muslims and Christians who are sincerely trying to live their faiths would say that things that effect that religion effect them in a very personal and real way. Doesn't matter if You personally don't agree with that.