Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
Trump's Mamoth Naivety Continues ...
47 Answers
https:/
Did he really seriously think that this duplicity was never going to come to light?
Even now, Trump is convinced that arguing that campaign funds were not used to buy the silence of an adult film star is the way to get out of this mess.
The source of the funds is not what America will want to know about - the reason that he felt the need to pay her off, is.
He is now spouting some guff that famous people routinely pay off people to buy their silence, it is a regular occurrence for people with money and / or fame.
Does it not occur to him that if he didn't consort with adult film stars, there would be no need to pay them off?
Also, while we are wondering about the workings of his mind - does he not see a difference between being a film or pop star, or a businessman, and being the elected President Of The United States?
Commentators are saying this might be the rope that hangs his presidency - and it's difficult to argue with that conclusion.
Did he really seriously think that this duplicity was never going to come to light?
Even now, Trump is convinced that arguing that campaign funds were not used to buy the silence of an adult film star is the way to get out of this mess.
The source of the funds is not what America will want to know about - the reason that he felt the need to pay her off, is.
He is now spouting some guff that famous people routinely pay off people to buy their silence, it is a regular occurrence for people with money and / or fame.
Does it not occur to him that if he didn't consort with adult film stars, there would be no need to pay them off?
Also, while we are wondering about the workings of his mind - does he not see a difference between being a film or pop star, or a businessman, and being the elected President Of The United States?
Commentators are saying this might be the rope that hangs his presidency - and it's difficult to argue with that conclusion.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
EDDIE - // Rowan has it, If Trump was good at his job none of these stories about past sexual indiscretions would matter a jot. But he is useless as president. //
Actually, I don't believe that is true.
If you have a man in charge of a government who is lying to his wife and family and friends about an affair, then you have a man who is a proven liar.
The issue about what he is lying about matters only to those close to him, but the fact that he is a liar matters to the nation he governs, because if he lies about that, then potentially he lies about anything and everything else, and that makes him utterly untrustworthy, and unsuitable to govern anything.
So it's not enough to say he does a good job, so he can play around if he wants - it's about being trusted to be honest, and a man who is having an affair is by definition, dishonest.
Actually, I don't believe that is true.
If you have a man in charge of a government who is lying to his wife and family and friends about an affair, then you have a man who is a proven liar.
The issue about what he is lying about matters only to those close to him, but the fact that he is a liar matters to the nation he governs, because if he lies about that, then potentially he lies about anything and everything else, and that makes him utterly untrustworthy, and unsuitable to govern anything.
So it's not enough to say he does a good job, so he can play around if he wants - it's about being trusted to be honest, and a man who is having an affair is by definition, dishonest.
AOG - // If you have a man in charge of a government who is 'accused' of lying to his wife and family and friends about an affair, then you have a man 'who could possibly be innocent'. //
Indeed you could, but rich famous and innocent people don't tend to give thousands of dollars to adult film stars to stop them gossiping to tabloid newspapers - if they did, where would they ever stop?
Surely the response of an honest man is "I have had nothing to do with you, and you know that, so you have no evidence to back up your story, and if you go to the press, I will sue you out of existence."
Not "I am going to pay you thousands of dollars to buy your silence, and then argue about where the money from afterwards."
I am as against trial-by-media as the next person, but the facts as they stand do not look good for the President's defence of his actions in this matter.
Indeed you could, but rich famous and innocent people don't tend to give thousands of dollars to adult film stars to stop them gossiping to tabloid newspapers - if they did, where would they ever stop?
Surely the response of an honest man is "I have had nothing to do with you, and you know that, so you have no evidence to back up your story, and if you go to the press, I will sue you out of existence."
Not "I am going to pay you thousands of dollars to buy your silence, and then argue about where the money from afterwards."
I am as against trial-by-media as the next person, but the facts as they stand do not look good for the President's defence of his actions in this matter.
// If you have a man in charge of a government who is 'accused' of lying to his wife and family and friends about an affair, then you have a man 'who could possibly be innocent'. //
This is why I was including "if", etc., in my post -- but, regardless, it shouldn't exactly be controversial to say that it's important to know the truth behind these allegations. If Trump slept with a porn star then nobody should care really, beyond wondering about the impact on his family life. If Trump lied about it, and broke the law to cover it up... that's another matter.
One way or another, it's in the public's interests to clear this up.
This is why I was including "if", etc., in my post -- but, regardless, it shouldn't exactly be controversial to say that it's important to know the truth behind these allegations. If Trump slept with a porn star then nobody should care really, beyond wondering about the impact on his family life. If Trump lied about it, and broke the law to cover it up... that's another matter.
One way or another, it's in the public's interests to clear this up.
jim - I see you echo my point exactly.
If President Trump has the morals of an alley cat, that is for his conscience and his family.
Potentially lying about it is a matter for the American electorate.
It reminds me of Jeffrey Archer and the Monica Coghlan business, encapsulated in the (possibly) imaginary exchange "We have never met before have we? Never mind, here's two thousand pounds cash in a brown paper bag. Bye!"
If President Trump has the morals of an alley cat, that is for his conscience and his family.
Potentially lying about it is a matter for the American electorate.
It reminds me of Jeffrey Archer and the Monica Coghlan business, encapsulated in the (possibly) imaginary exchange "We have never met before have we? Never mind, here's two thousand pounds cash in a brown paper bag. Bye!"
Spicerack - // How much more efficient to choose a culprit and then hunt for the crime(s). //
That would be true if the circumstances were different.
This is not a news story because someone decided to mix up the President with an adult film star and make up a sordid tale about pay-offs for silence.
It's a news story because the facts revealed indicate that this is what has happened.
The president has been proven to have lied about paying money to Ms. Daniels to buy her silence, and he as attempting to bluff his way out of it by suggesting that this is standard behaviour for people who are rich and famous.
Added to that the serious questions being raised about the source of the funds used, and the fact that the President is on record as having lied about knowing about the payment, and you don't have anyone finding a 'culprit' and looking for a 'crime' - you have a set of proven circumstances that show that, at best the President is a bad liar and a philander, and at worst, he has committed criminal acts in misusing party funds for his own purposes.
To try and suggest that this is simply media mischief making flies in the face of proven facts.
That would be true if the circumstances were different.
This is not a news story because someone decided to mix up the President with an adult film star and make up a sordid tale about pay-offs for silence.
It's a news story because the facts revealed indicate that this is what has happened.
The president has been proven to have lied about paying money to Ms. Daniels to buy her silence, and he as attempting to bluff his way out of it by suggesting that this is standard behaviour for people who are rich and famous.
Added to that the serious questions being raised about the source of the funds used, and the fact that the President is on record as having lied about knowing about the payment, and you don't have anyone finding a 'culprit' and looking for a 'crime' - you have a set of proven circumstances that show that, at best the President is a bad liar and a philander, and at worst, he has committed criminal acts in misusing party funds for his own purposes.
To try and suggest that this is simply media mischief making flies in the face of proven facts.
Mind you, apparently Trump just came out today and said that Giuliani "didn't have his facts straight" -- which is probably as least somewhat correct, as Giuliani contradicted himself at least five times in the course of his interview(s).
At the risk of moving the goalposts, though, this still raises questions over Trump's judgement -- why allow Giuliani to make such statements without clearing them beforehand, or waiting until he was better-informed; why appear to agree with Giuliani in three tweets and then disagree with him today; why hire/retain someone so incompetent as Giuliani in the first place? And so on, and so forth.
I still don't see much sign of Trump's presidency being actually derailed. If, for example, the peace talks with North Korea are successful, then that alone might be cause to grant him a second term in the minds of US voters. And anyway, it's not clear that his supporters care all that much. Selling this as a "witch hunt" (rather than, you know, the Head of State in the US being understandably subject to intense scrutiny, and it turning out that there's a lot of skeletons in Trump's closet) has worked, and has allowed him to bat off everything else so far.
At the risk of moving the goalposts, though, this still raises questions over Trump's judgement -- why allow Giuliani to make such statements without clearing them beforehand, or waiting until he was better-informed; why appear to agree with Giuliani in three tweets and then disagree with him today; why hire/retain someone so incompetent as Giuliani in the first place? And so on, and so forth.
I still don't see much sign of Trump's presidency being actually derailed. If, for example, the peace talks with North Korea are successful, then that alone might be cause to grant him a second term in the minds of US voters. And anyway, it's not clear that his supporters care all that much. Selling this as a "witch hunt" (rather than, you know, the Head of State in the US being understandably subject to intense scrutiny, and it turning out that there's a lot of skeletons in Trump's closet) has worked, and has allowed him to bat off everything else so far.
Excellent points Jim - in the same way that Mrs Thatcher was able to ride a wave of jingoism back to Number 10, the same may apply to the President.
That assumes that the Korean accord doesn't fall off the rails, and that Ms. Daniels can be dissuaded somehow from carrying on being a nusicance.
Now, let me think - a President and a blonde actress with potentially career-wrecking secrets to spill, is there a precedent, for the President?
That assumes that the Korean accord doesn't fall off the rails, and that Ms. Daniels can be dissuaded somehow from carrying on being a nusicance.
Now, let me think - a President and a blonde actress with potentially career-wrecking secrets to spill, is there a precedent, for the President?
andy-hughes
Indeed you could, but rich famous and innocent people don't tend to give thousands of dollars to adult film stars to stop them gossiping to tabloid newspapers
The president has been proven to have lied about paying money to Ms. Daniels to buy her silence, and he as attempting to bluff his way out of it by suggesting that this is standard behaviour for people who are rich and famous.
Amazing.
It was standard behaviour for Micheal Jackson (only it was millions not thousands)
But hang on ... surely rich famous and innocent people don't tend to give ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶s̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶ millions of dollars to ̶a̶d̶u̶l̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶m̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶r̶s̶ kids and kids parents to stop them gossiping to tabloid newspapers
Cue 37 paragraphs of why my post is 'invalid'
Indeed you could, but rich famous and innocent people don't tend to give thousands of dollars to adult film stars to stop them gossiping to tabloid newspapers
The president has been proven to have lied about paying money to Ms. Daniels to buy her silence, and he as attempting to bluff his way out of it by suggesting that this is standard behaviour for people who are rich and famous.
Amazing.
It was standard behaviour for Micheal Jackson (only it was millions not thousands)
But hang on ... surely rich famous and innocent people don't tend to give ̶t̶h̶o̶u̶s̶a̶n̶d̶s̶ ̶ millions of dollars to ̶a̶d̶u̶l̶t̶ ̶f̶i̶l̶m̶ ̶s̶t̶a̶r̶s̶ kids and kids parents to stop them gossiping to tabloid newspapers
Cue 37 paragraphs of why my post is 'invalid'
Talbot - Your post is valid insofar as Michael Jackson did indeed buy various silences to the tune of millions of dollars.
My point is that it is hardly typical, as Mr Trump seems to think it is.
Can you name me ten more rich and / or famous people who have bought people off?
In the time it takes you to research that, off the top of my head I can name you one hundred rich and / or famous people who have never done it.
Michael Jackson is indeed a valid comparison, but you'd struggle to find more, which makes the Trump claim even more preposterous.
Not only is it not 'standard', as he says, it is virtually unheard of!
My point is that it is hardly typical, as Mr Trump seems to think it is.
Can you name me ten more rich and / or famous people who have bought people off?
In the time it takes you to research that, off the top of my head I can name you one hundred rich and / or famous people who have never done it.
Michael Jackson is indeed a valid comparison, but you'd struggle to find more, which makes the Trump claim even more preposterous.
Not only is it not 'standard', as he says, it is virtually unheard of!
This is the man who would have been in the White House had Trump not won:
https:/
Which of AB's sanctimonious moralists would have had a problem with that?
Don't all squawk at once.
https:/
Which of AB's sanctimonious moralists would have had a problem with that?
Don't all squawk at once.
Vetuste - I can't speak for the 'sanctimonious moralists' whomever they may be - but for myself, I am sure you would agree that Mr Clinton would only be living in the Whitehouse because his wife was elected President - he himself was not eligible for the post.
This debate is about what is happening, and what the result may be, not non-existent scenarios involving past incumbents.
This debate is about what is happening, and what the result may be, not non-existent scenarios involving past incumbents.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Dores Anyone Know What This Means...
Technology11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.