The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[T.Lex]

While it makes for good TV... You know, I actually honestly don't care, and here's why... people are freaky. I have no idea what type of relationships the Clintons or the Trumps have maybe Hilary and Melania knew about them, maybe they didn't care. If that's they thing, it's not my place to tell them how much I disapprove of it. If Melania wants to come out and say something expressing her displeasure, then I can take issue. But if she's going to be quiet, I see no reason why I should really care also.

Those are 2 different issues, though. The spouse has to decide whether to stay or make a big deal out of it. I don't care about that decision; every relationship has its own dynamic. I don't have to understand the relationship to make a determination about whether to vote for someone.

If there's a candidate who has an openly open relationship with their spouse, then that's another data point to consider. Kinda like a, "At least they're honest about saying they don't treat the vow seriously."

Also, though, if the couple is in a non-married relationship, I would view that differently. If they haven't made the promise, then there's not promise that could be broken.

 

[Birds Away]

Hey BA, I hope I didn't come across as calling you out. That wasn't my intent. I can completely understand the "don't care what happens in the bedroom" angle.

I just want to emphasize that I said honor and integrity "in relative terms." That is, "more or less than the other candidates."

I think Pence is an example of honor and integrity in politics (in relative terms). He tends to choose his words carefully, but he generally means them.

No, I get what you're saying and I agree, for the most part.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, I get what you're saying and I agree, for the most part.

...and the minor part says "go to Hell T.Lex!!!!!"








!

 

[Birds Away]

...and the minor part says "go to Hell T.Lex!!!!!"








!

 

[T.Lex]

 

[Timjoebillybob]

While it makes for good TV... You know, I actually honestly don't care, and here's why... people are freaky. I have no idea what type of relationships the Clintons or the Trumps have maybe Hilary and Melania knew about them, maybe they didn't care. If that's they thing, it's not my place to tell them how much I disapprove of it. If Melania wants to come out and say something expressing her displeasure, then I can take issue. But if she's going to be quiet, I see no reason why I should really care also.

I do agree, to a degree. I have known (not biblically) couples like that. And it may not be my place to tell them how much or if I disapprove of it, but I can still have an opinion on it and take that opinion into consideration.

Those are 2 different issues, though. The spouse has to decide whether to stay or make a big deal out of it. I don't care about that decision; every relationship has its own dynamic. I don't have to understand the relationship to make a determination about whether to vote for someone.

If there's a candidate who has an openly open relationship with their spouse, then that's another data point to consider. Kinda like a, "At least they're honest about saying they don't treat the vow seriously."

Also, though, if the couple is in a non-married relationship, I would view that differently. If they haven't made the promise, then there's not promise that could be broken.

I also agree with this, to a degree. I wouldn't say "they are honest about saying they don't treat the vow seriously", it could simply not be part of what they vowed. If their vows (or prenup) was love, honor, but I get 2 weekends a year with the bimbo of my choice in Hawaii, I can't necessarily say they don't take their vow seriously. Similar to how it seems you would view a non-married couple. I used that example because it was alleged that something similar was in Bill Gates prenup when he married.

 

[BugI02]

That depends on how you look at it. To me it appears that Trump's lawyer made a payment to Ms Daniels to suppress information that they potentially believed could harm his campaign. It comes down to simple question "Was this payment made with Trump political campaign in mind?"

I don't think anyone is saying the whore didn't get paid, so what's her beef? She accepted the payment but feels free to violate the non-disclosure clause because the principal didn't sign it! Methinks she is angry because she cannot endear herself even further with the left by showing that Trump signed off on it, likely after failing to blackmail more money from Trump first. #MeTwo(hundred thousand)

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
When evaluating a candidate, things like honor and integrity still matter to me, at least in relative terms. If a candidate made one of the most important vows possible - to a spouse [and before God] - and routinely breaks it, that's a character issue that is difficult for me to overcome.

Absolutely correct

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I don't think anyone is saying the whore didn't get paid, so what's her beef? She accepted the payment but feels free to violate the non-disclosure clause because the principal didn't sign it! Methinks she is angry because she cannot endear herself even further with the left by showing that Trump signed off on it, likely after failing to blackmail more money from Trump first. #MeTwo(hundred thousand)

Calling her a whore is about the same as saying Melania Trump stars in porn.

 

[BugI02]

So her relationship with Trump was based on love? Or is she just negotiating the price (still)

 

[Alpo]

Let the clothes fit the man.

This is just one more instance of what a miserable wretch he is.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

So her relationship with Trump was based on love? Or is she just negotiating the price (still)

Who says it has to be either? And which is worse or are they both equal, a prostitute or the one who hires them?

 

[BugI02]

She is suing to make sure her story is told, according to a lot of the coverage. If she wanted to tell her story, why did she accept the 130Gs and sign the agreement? If she isn't a blackmailer, why wait until 2016 to want to tell her "story"? And after getting her payday, why this legal move? I suspect she's received a better offer for her "story". Trump's a cad, but do you actually think [STRIKE]Stormy Daniels[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Peggy Peterson[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Gomer[/STRIKE] Stephanie Clifford didn't know who he was or that he was married? Media whore/actual whore, it's getting hard to tell

Still say #meTwo(hundredGs)

 

[T.Lex]

She is suing to make sure her story is told, according to a lot of the coverage. If she wanted to tell her story, why did she accept the 130Gs and sign the agreement? If she isn't a blackmailer, why wait until 2016 to want to tell her "story"? And after getting her payday, why this legal move? I suspect she's received a better offer for her "story". Trump's a cad, but do you actually think [STRIKE]Stormy Daniels[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Peggy Peterson[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Gomer[/STRIKE] Stephanie Clifford didn't know who he was or that he was married? Media whore/actual whore, it's getting hard to tell

Still say #meTwo(hundredGs)

Because freedom.

She had a freedom to contract away her right to tell the story.

If the contract is invalid (question as to "void" or "voidable"), then she's not allowed to keep the money unless she wants to continue under the terms of the contract. She's probably figured there's more money to be made by escaping the contract.

So, the first $130k she makes, she'll use to pay it back. After that, she can milk that cow all she wants.

Wait.

That was probably the premise of one of her films.

 

[jamil]

I really don't care who he is screwing as long as it isn't us.

“I like taking the guns first; then due process.”

 

[jamil]

Agreed.

Out of curiosity, did you feel the same about Clinton?

Let’s see if that works. “I don’t care who Clinton is screwing as long as it isn’t us.”

yeah. That works there too.

 

[T.Lex]

“I like taking the guns first; then due process.”

Ok.

I think my sentiment about Trump is well established. But, there's a context to that quote - mentally ill/threatening people - that is important.

 

[jamil]

Ok.

I think my sentiment about Trump is well established. But, there's a context to that quote - mentally ill/threatening people - that is important.

Yeah. There's a context to that. That context does not imply a more palatable interpretation of his words. He also said within that same context that the cops should have just taken his guns whether that was lawful to do or not. This makes clear that his meaning is as plain as his words.

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah. There's a context to that. That context does not imply a more palatable interpretation of his words. He also said within that same context that the cops should have just taken his guns whether that was lawful to do or not. This makes clear that his meaning is as plain as his words.

Yeah, but Trump says alot of things he doesn't really mean....

 

[KLB]

Yeah, but Trump says alot of things he doesn't really mean....

Maybe he means them when he says them and just changes his mind a lot