NationStates

Farnhamia wrote:Prostitutes are paid by the people with whom they have sex. Porn actors/actresses are paid by the people for whom they are making the movie. Kind of a difference there. I still suggest the title be changed.

As he pointed out, that's false; the definition of a prostitute is one who exchanges sexual activities for cash. As well, who the fuck is going to be offended by this thread title to justify renaming it?

Shofercia wrote:

Bombadil wrote:We should note the point this was lost on.. that the President's twitter account can't be taken seriously. Essentially the judge ruled that Trump's twitter account is a joke.

Kind of sad that we needed a Judicial ruling on that. And that Daniels and Avenatti actually look it seriously.

I mean this is odd.. it's really the same ruling that was applied to Penthouse against Jerry Falwell. Falwell sued because Penthouse ran a mock ad where Falwell outlines his first sexual experience as fucking his mother in an outhouse. Penthouse replied that no one could seriously believe that Falwell would have done that and so it was clearly satire.

That 'no one would seriously believe', and that it was clearly satire aspect let Penthouse win.

However in this case Trump tweeted:

A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!

Can that really be called rhetorical hyperbole, he's outright saying it's a con job and that's what she's claiming as defamation. I could see another ruling dismissing the case but not that 'no one would seriously believe' the claim by Trump. It's not really satire or hyperbole. He meant it. That's evidenced by his response after the ruling.

"Great, now I can go after Horseface and her 3rd rate lawyer in the Great State of Texas. She will confirm the letter she signed! She knows nothing about me, a total con!"

Clearly he means it and he's repeated it.

An appeal has been filed. I'm not saying she should have won this, but I think the ruling is odd.

EDIT: to be clearer.. “If this Court were to prevent Mr. Trump from engaging in this type of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ against a political adversary, it would significantly hamper the office of the President. Any strongly-worded response by a president to another politician or public figure could constitute an action for defamation. This would deprive this country of the ‘discourse’ common to the political process”.

Basically in political discourse you can claim what you like.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:*whispers even quieter*

You believed Christine Ford and Anita Hill without evidence.

*Whispers to barely audible levels*
And in the same breath you believe Juanita Broddrick without evidence unironically.

Yes, yes, regardless of your politics, you're both engaging in cherrypicking idiocy with no interest in due process but rather an obsessive need for validation with childish point scoring. I'm sure someone is impressed.

Petrasylvania wrote:

Kaggeceria wrote:*whispers even quieter*

You believed Christine Ford and Anita Hill without evidence.

*Whispers to barely audible levels*
And in the same breath you believe Juanita Broddrick without evidence unironically.

*literally just mouthing words at this point*
You can't criticize someone for believing a victim without evidence if you literally do the same thing.

Kaggeceria wrote:

Petrasylvania wrote:*Whispers to barely audible levels*
And in the same breath you believe Juanita Broddrick without evidence unironically.

*literally just mouthing words at this point*
You can't criticize someone for believing a victim without evidence if you literally do the same thing.

*shouts through loudspeaker*

Can you two just get a room already!

MGTOWia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Which is why the polls still have the Dems on course to retake the House. Besides, Trump is too dumb to keep something like that a secret.

You actually still believe in polls?!?!?

>Polls are only valid when they produce a pro-Republican result

Everybody drink.

Vassenor wrote:

MGTOWia wrote:
You actually still believe in polls?!?!?

>Polls are only valid when they produce a pro-Republican result

Everybody drink.

> Vassenor pulled a strawman from their arse.
Everybody drink. God, I'm glad we don't play that drinking game, we'd be dead in weeks.

MGTOWia is right to be cynical of polls. The polls had Trump behind, had the leave campaign for Brexit behind remain. And look where we are today.

And that's not a partisan observation, thats simple facts. I wouldn't blindly trust a poll if they said the opposite.

Bombadil wrote:We should note the point this was lost on.. that the President's twitter account can't be taken seriously. Essentially the judge ruled that Trump's twitter account is a joke.

How did he?

Vassenor wrote:

MGTOWia wrote:
You actually still believe in polls?!?!?

>Polls are only valid when they produce a pro-Republican result

Everybody drink.

... which they didn't claim.

I guess soon Trump won't even be able to pay women to sleep with him.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:I guess soon Trump won't even be able to pay women to sleep with him.

The ones who will demand payment up front.

Petrasylvania wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:I guess soon Trump won't even be able to pay women to sleep with him.

The ones who will demand payment up front.

And want a lawyer present filming the whole thing.

Estanglia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
>Polls are only valid when they produce a pro-Republican result

Everybody drink.

... which they didn't claim.

So what did they claim then?

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:... which they didn't claim.

So what did they claim then?

I would tell you to use critical thinking but you're stuck on a "Fuck everything right of Clinton" track and you can't get off the rails.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:I guess soon Trump won't even be able to pay women to sleep with him.

I'm skeptical that Daniels will win either of the cases she's brought. Her argument that the contract they signed is not legally binding is a weak one that isn't substantiated by basic contract law. It's a pretty open and shut case as far as I understand it. The only thing that would nullify the contract, as my article points out, is if a judge determined that the contract was fundamentally unfair or pernicious to society. That'd be a stretch in this case since the contract does appear to be fair and not knowing about Trump's sex life would make my life far better than knowing about it.

Source.

Fahran wrote:

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:I guess soon Trump won't even be able to pay women to sleep with him.

I'm skeptical that Daniels will win either of the cases she's brought. Her argument that the contract they signed is not legally binding is a weak one that isn't substantiated by basic contract law. It's a pretty open and shut case as far as I understand it. The only thing that would nullify the contract, as my article points out, is if a judge determined that the contract was fundamentally unfair or pernicious to society. That'd be a stretch in this case since the contract does appear to be fair and not knowing about Trump's sex life would make my life far better than knowing about it.

Source.

Trump didn't even sign the contract.

Petrasylvania wrote:Trump didn't even sign the contract.

You don't have to sign a contract for it to be enforceable in most circumstances. Providing the terms stipulated to one party are upheld and the contract is written down, or verifiable in some way, it can be enforced by a court. Even if a signature was necessary for this contract to go into effect, a court could still consider this contract enforceable for the reasons mentioned in my article. Please do read it.

Mind you, I dislike Trump on a personal level and find his politics too petty and liberal for my liking, but this is a losing battle for Avenatti and Daniels. The fact that it's been blown up this way is ridiculous, but then I suppose sex and intrigue sell to the bored and vaguely nihilistic.

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:... which they didn't claim.

So what did they claim then?

That polls aren't valid.

Estanglia wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So what did they claim then?

That polls aren't valid.

And why would that be?

Lol that was funny. And now she has the gull to ask people to pay off the expense for her.

Vassenor wrote:

Estanglia wrote:That polls aren't valid.

And why would that be?

Ask them. They didn't mention why in their post.

Chernoslavia wrote:Lol that was funny. And now she has the gull to ask people to pay off the expense for her.

Adversarial politics is a neat cover for paying off the frivolous law suit you brought in a bid to extract even more money from a notoriously unlikable figure.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Prostitutes are paid by the people with whom they have sex. Porn actors/actresses are paid by the people for whom they are making the movie. Kind of a difference there. I still suggest the title be changed.

As he pointed out, that's false; the definition of a prostitute is one who exchanges sexual activities for cash. As well, who the fuck is going to be offended by this thread title to justify renaming it?

More than 50% of Americans oppose prostitution or they'd have forced its legalization, or at least made it less serious a crime than one to get you thrown in PRISON to get ass-raped by Bubba.

2/5 of voting-eligible Americans didn't vote, and of those who voted, nearly half voted Trump. They consented to have Trump assume the highest office of the land; why would they be okay with accusing him of a crime for which anyone else would do hard time?

I'm okay with insulting Trump on everything valid, but equivocation is slightly more dicey.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:More than 50% of Americans oppose prostitution or they'd have forced its legalization, or at least made it less serious a crime than one to get you thrown in PRISON to get ass-raped by Bubba.

2/5 of voting-eligible Americans didn't vote, and of those who voted, nearly half voted Trump. They consented to have Trump assume the highest office of the land; why would they be okay with accusing him of a crime for which anyone else would do hard time?

I'm okay with insulting Trump on everything valid, but equivocation is slightly more dicey.

You're conflating the standard and legal definitions of prostitution and furthermore presuming that Trump's hush money represented the purchase of sexual favors. Honestly, I don't really like words used to shame women for their sexuality or the less kind sentiments behind them, but it's not incorrect to state that Daniels is a prostitute by the standard definition. It's even possible that she has rendered services that would align with the legal definition of prostitution as well given the often sketchy and coercive nature of the sex industry, though we cannot know that for certain.

Fahran wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:More than 50% of Americans oppose prostitution or they'd have forced its legalization, or at least made it less serious a crime than one to get you thrown in PRISON to get ass-raped by Bubba.

2/5 of voting-eligible Americans didn't vote, and of those who voted, nearly half voted Trump. They consented to have Trump assume the highest office of the land; why would they be okay with accusing him of a crime for which anyone else would do hard time?

I'm okay with insulting Trump on everything valid, but equivocation is slightly more dicey.

You're conflating the standard and legal definitions of prostitution and furthermore presuming that Trump's hush money represented the purchase of sexual favors. Honestly, I don't really like words used to shame women for their sexuality or the less kind sentiments behind them, but it's not incorrect to state that Daniels is a prostitute by the standard definition. It's even possible that she has rendered services that would align with the legal definition of prostitution as well given the often sketchy and coercive nature of the sex industry, though we cannot know that for certain.

That's why I said "equivocation is slightly more dicey."