What's ''Stormy Daniels'' about?

[Raider5678]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Where the heck do you get your info. There were quite a few news articles that have investigated that particular talking point. Obama is around 16th in terms of numbers of total executive orders and is ranked even lower if one takes the years in office into account. Perhaps unsurprisingly FDR signed the most orders (ca. 10x the amount of Obama). Among the Presidents from more recent years Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, Carter and Bush signed more orders than Obama.

I was mistaken then.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

At the very least, two examples of norms that were not followed: disclosure of tax returns and possibly an independent health exam might be written into law.

Also I wouldn't be surprised if the legal wording against family members serving active roles in the WH was strengthened.

None of that weakens any legitimate presidential power, and none of them would seem to be partisan.

Yes, but that hardly falls under "reducing presidential power", as you pointed out.

Which, is what I highly doubt will happen.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Executive powers we significantly reduced after all of the Nixon shenanigans, too.

I was 100% unaware of this. What powers were cut?

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I was mistaken then.

Yes, but there's no shame in that. 

[Raider5678]

12 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The evangelicals are doubling down rather than admit to a mistake,

I am an "evangelical" and I don't understand this.

A common phrase around here, popularized by one of the Grahams: "He's my president. Not my moral advisor."

 

5 hours ago, swansont said:

or directly hampered by congressional action

Funny thing is, when lawyers go to investigate Congress this get's thrown out the window.

[CharonY]

19 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I was mistaken then.

But you still decided to build a meta-narrative around false facts? Would you revise it now?

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What powers were cut?

War powers

[swansont]

55 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Yes, but that hardly falls under "reducing presidential power", as you pointed out.

It arguably falls under independent oversight.

 

Quote

I was 100% unaware of this. What powers were cut?

https://watergate-scandal-impact-nhd.weebly.com/limits-on-powers-of-the-president.html

 

Freedom of Information Act, Government in Sunshine Act, Federal Election Campaign Act were all in response to Watergate. Some of the limitations on presidential powers are less direct than others, nor are they solely directed at the office (Nixon didn't act alone)

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

A common phrase around here, popularized by one of the Grahams: "He's my president. Not my moral advisor."

How convenient. That way you can avoid responsibility for your actions as long as the immoral action is done by someone you put in power, rather than by you performing the immoral action yourself. Graham's pathetic attempt to shirk responsibility is appalling.

[Raider5678]

3 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How convenient. That way you can avoid responsibility for your actions as long as the immoral action is done by someone you put in power, rather than by you performing the immoral action yourself. Graham's pathetic attempt to shirk responsibility is appalling.

The actions of Trump and Stormy Daniels is our fault how?

Additionally, what about Bill Clinton?

Are you saying everyone who voted him in has to take responsibility for the immoral actions he did?

Not sure you thought that one through.

 

Additionally, when you get into the pro-life / pro-choice debate, you have to ask yourself this same question from our perspective.

You seem to have it in your head that Republicans and evangelicals are just in love with Trump.

That's not the case. To them, he was the lesser of two evils. Then, you have the party loyalists who'll defend him no matter what.

Yet, some people have the nerve to group everyone who voted for Trump into one group. Not that simple.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

https://watergate-scandal-impact-nhd.weebly.com/limits-on-powers-of-the-president.html

 

Freedom of Information Act, Government in Sunshine Act, Federal Election Campaign Act were all in response to Watergate. Some of the limitations on presidential powers are less direct than others, nor are they solely directed at the office (Nixon didn't act alone)

Alright.

Reading through some of those, a lot of them are geared towards government transparency.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Raider5678

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The actions of Trump and Stormy Daniels is our fault how?

Additionally, what about Bill Clinton?

Are you saying everyone who voted him in has to take responsibility for the immoral actions he did?

 

If they voted him in knowing these things, they have shown that the immorality is not a contributing factor. Which is not what the historical position of the religious right has been. It's just rank hypocrisy. But Bill Clinton did not face an election with such moral questions in play. Trump did.

The flip in how many evangelicals would forgive the president for immoral actions is huge. ~30--70, but it has reversed now that Trump is in office. It's as if it's not about the morals at all...

https://relevantmagazine.com/slice/study-white-evangelicals-are-suddenly-much-more-likely-to-forgive-politicians-immoral-conduct/

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

The actions of Trump and Stormy Daniels is our fault how?

 

Straw. Man.

Quote

Additionally, what about Bill Clinton?

 

Trying to dismiss the faults of one by pointing to the faults of another is rather juvenile.

Quote

Are you saying everyone who voted him in has to take responsibility for the immoral actions he did?

I am saying anyone who sees someone's faults, is not critical of those faults, and continues to support that person, shares in the responsibility of their immoral actions.

[Raider5678]

Just now, zapatos said:

Straw. Man.

Trying to dismiss the faults of one by pointing to the faults of another is rather juvenile.

I am saying anyone who sees someone's faults, is not critical of those faults, and continues to support that person, shares in the responsibility of their immoral actions.

Um. No.

I'm calling you out here.

This is exactly what you said:

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

How convenient. That way you can avoid responsibility for your actions as long as the immoral action is done by someone you put in power, rather than by you performing the immoral action yourself. Graham's pathetic attempt to shirk responsibility is appalling.

 

You're saying I(or trump voters) am trying to "avoid responsibility for your actions as long as the immoral action is done by someone you put in power."

By saying this, you're very directly saying there is some kind of responsibility that I(or trump voters) am supposed to have.

This is not a straw man. This is exactly what you said.

So again, I ask you.

How is the responsibility for Trump and Stormy Daniels my(or trump voters) fault?

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Trying to dismiss the faults of one by pointing to the faults of another is rather juvenile.

I am not doing so, I am pointing out your statement was stupid.

 

You've laid the direct responsibility for Trumps actions with Stormy Daniels on Trump Voter's shoulders.(see above)

So. If that's the case, you'd also have to lay direct responsibility for Bill Clintons actions of Bill Clintons voters.

 

And let me make this clear. 

I don't believe Trump Voters made trump do something before anyone cast a vote for him.

Nor do I believe Clinton voters made Clinton screw his intern.

It's ridiculous.

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Freedom of Information Act, Government in Sunshine Act, Federal Election Campaign Act were all in response to Watergate. Some of the limitations on presidential powers are less direct than others, nor are they solely directed at the office (Nixon didn't act alone)

 

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Alright.

Reading through some of those, a lot of them are geared towards government transparency.

FFS. There's always a rationalization or excuse. How about the War Powers Resolution, then? Tell me how that's not a true scotsman...

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I am saying anyone who sees someone's faults, is not critical of those faults, and continues to support that person, shares in the responsibility of their immoral actions.

The statement "He's my president, not my moral advisor" does not, in any way, say they're not critical of those faults.

If anything, it's pointing out they do have a problem with it. Otherwise, they'd just defend those faults.

 

1 minute ago, iNow said:

FFS. There's always a rationalization or excuse. How about the War Powers Resolution, then? Tell me how that's not a true scotsman...

1

I was agreeing with him.

What the heck are you talking about?

Edited May 10, 2018 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Um. No.

I'm calling you out here.

This is exactly what you said:

You're saying I(or trump voters) am trying to "avoid responsibility for your actions as long as the immoral action is done by someone you put in power."

By saying this, you're very directly saying there is some kind of responsibility that I(or trump voters) am supposed to have.

This is not a straw man. This is exactly what you said.

So again, I ask you.

How is the responsibility for Trump and Stormy Daniels my(or trump voters) fault?

And I tell you again it is a straw man.

Knowledge of Stormy Daniels was unavailable at the time of the election. You know this yet are trying to make it the basis of discounting what I said. Poor form.

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

I was agreeing with him.

What the heck are you talking about?

My mistake. Just trying to remind folks that I too am human... and add another presidential power restricted as a result of Nixon

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

And I tell you again it is a straw man.

Knowledge of Stormy Daniels was unavailable at the time of the election. You know this yet are trying to make it the basis of discounting what I said. Poor form.

What is your point then?

 

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

There's always a rationalization or excuse.

 

This is my problem with party politics.

[DrP]

 

Who cares what the pres does in his or a pornstar's bedroom? Good luck to the old fella - no one cares.    What they DO care about I think is the lying....  he tried to cover it up and hide it from the public and probably his family.  Lying in office I believe is what BC got impeached for (correct me if I am wrong) not for adultery - which isn't illegal.

 

Just now, zapatos said:

And I tell you again it is a straw man.

Knowledge of Stormy Daniels was unavailable at the time of the election. You know this yet are trying to make it the basis of discounting what I said. Poor form.

Yet he claims ANY form of misleading is totally wrong.   Being fair he doesn't know he is doing it.

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, DrP said:

Yet he claims ANY form of misleading is totally wrong.   Being fair he doesn't know he is doing it.

 

If he wasn't trying to say that somehow people other then the President are responsible for the president lying about Stormy Daniels, I have no idea what he's trying to say.

Do you?

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, Raider5678 said:

What is your point then?

 

My point is that people who deny their culpability by throwing out a pithy bumper sticker saying are pathetic, and that group includes Graham and those Evangelicals who support Trump while ignoring or minimizing his major deficiencies.

 

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

My point is that people who deny their culpability by throwing out a pithy bumper sticker saying are pathetic, and that group includes Graham and those Evangelicals who support Trump while ignoring or minimizing his major deficiencies.

 

Culpability means responsibility for a fault

So, you're saying: People who deny their responsibility for a fault by throwing out a pithy bumper sticker saying

Unless I'm way off, you're saying it's their responsibility for Trump's actions of lying about Stormy Daniels?

 

[iNow]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Culpability means responsibility for a fault

cul·pa·ble

ˈkəlpəb(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: culpable

1. deserving blame.

   "sometimes you're just as culpable when you watch something as when you actually participate"

   synonyms:

   to blame, guilty, at fault, in the wrong, answerable, accountable, responsible, blameworthy, censurable "I hold you personally culpable"

antonyms:innocent

adjective

1.

deserving blame or censure; blameworthy.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/culpable

Culpability generally implies that an act performed is wrong but does not involve any evil intent by the wrongdoer <...> It is used to mean reprehensible rather than wantonly or grossly negligent behavior. Culpable conduct may be wrong but it is not necessarily criminal.

Edited May 10, 2018 by iNow

[Phi for All]

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Unless I'm way off, you're saying it's their responsibility for Trump's actions of lying about Stormy Daniels?

The view from here looks like evangelicals defended Trump and claimed they believed what he said from the beginning about this affair, but are STILL defending him when it turns out he lied, several times, and had his lawyer lie, several times. Their original reasons for sticking up for him proved incorrect, yet they still show support. How is that not hypocritical? In the past, many politicians have been ousted for having affairs while married, with most evangelicals at the forefront waving torches. Why does Turnip get a pass from them? Why are they suddenly crying forgiveness?

I agree with iNow, this is tribal rigidity at work. Trump has NONE of the positive qualities normally associated with the religious right, but apparently he resonates due to all the negative qualities he shares with them, like racism, fear, scientific ignorance, and intolerance.

[Ten oz]

Quote

 

President Trump’s financial disclosure, released on Wednesday, included for the first time repayment of more than $100,000 to his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, in 2017, raising questions about whether Mr. Trump’s sworn filing from a year ago improperly omitted the debt.

In a highly unusual letter, the Office of Government Ethics alerted the Justice Department on Wednesday to the omission, telling Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, that the ethics office had determined “the payment made by Mr. Cohen is required to be reported as a liability.”

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/politics/trump-financial-disclosure.html

 

 

[iNow]

 

Quote

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by iNow

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/21/17765496/michael-cohen-plea-deal-sdny-criminal-prison

If he surrounds himself with such people, I don't think it's unreasonable to think Trump is like them... crooked.