Do You Care About Stormy Daniels?

[ProudModerate2]

The question to the poll is vague and confusing.
People may read it as if "Do you care about the woman directly," and not necessarily as the "Stormy Daniels story" (as I believe the OP intended).
So the voting could be skewed/off.

I do care about the overall story, as it fuels some relevant questions:
Did the President indirectly pay her off? And is this considered a political contribution?
Did the Orange Clown's lawyers hire some thug to threaten Stormy in that parking lot?
In general, is the Orange One abusing his power (even via his lawyers) to cover this whole thing up?
Etc, etc.
The "sex" side of the story is all secondary, and only provides for good laughs.

[Reaganfan]

Ah okay, my two cents.

I was never bothered by sex stuff. Not since I came of age, roughly 18 years ago. I kind of grew up being told to be respectful to women, punish rapists, and be safe and smart. I'm not gonna lie, I saw this film when I was a kid on AMC and laughed like crazy. It was (at the time) a 30 year old movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FchnNJOEZmM

All that being said, I was always more outraged by what was considered negative. Law breaking, assault, drug use, gangs, ect.

I would hardly call myself a "prude", but if I were to be a "bad boy" it wouldn't be a drug-using thug bad boy, but rather a "Mad Men" style 1960s bad boy. Cigarette, martini, scoring with the secretary. To be fair, that type of life was glamorized while the latter was often un-glamorized. See the link above for example.

I think the problem we are seeing here is what even some older feminists have taken problem with lately, which is that some younger women are equating consensual sex that they don't enjoy with sexual assault and rape. That type of thought process will be the end of the fifteen minutes of fame for the #MeToo movement. A guy meets a girl, likes the girl, she likes him, they have sex. He never calls her back. He's a jerk, he's a womanizer, but he is far from a "rapist". When you begin to get into the thought process of rape "after the fact", things begin to become rather Orwellian.

[alomas]

No one cares about this bullsh**t, promoted by Fake News media to discredit President Trump. I mean Trump may not be a role-model conservative with his three marriages and sexual statements but what counts are his actions.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

No one cares about this bullsh**t, promoted by Fake News media to discredit President Trump. I mean Trump may not be a role-model conservative with his three marriages and sexual statements but what counts are his actions.

This isn't reddit or 4Chan, where ultra-Trumpists can bitch about the media.

[TheSaint250]

No one cares about this bullsh**t, promoted by Fake News media to discredit President Trump. I mean Trump may not be a role-model conservative with his three marriages and sexual statements but what counts are his actions.

This isn't reddit or 4Chan, where ultra-Trumpists can bitch about the media.

You're right, this is a political forum where people can express their opinions and we can agree or disagree without (hopefully) devolving into insults.

[Rookie Yinzer]

Ah okay, my two cents.

I was never bothered by sex stuff. Not since I came of age, roughly 18 years ago. I kind of grew up being told to be respectful to women, punish rapists, and be safe and smart. I'm not gonna lie, I saw this film when I was a kid on AMC and laughed like crazy. It was (at the time) a 30 year old movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FchnNJOEZmM

All that being said, I was always more outraged by what was considered negative. Law breaking, assault, drug use, gangs, ect.

I would hardly call myself a "prude", but if I were to be a "bad boy" it wouldn't be a drug-using thug bad boy, but rather a "Mad Men" style 1960s bad boy. Cigarette, martini, scoring with the secretary. To be fair, that type of life was glamorized while the latter was often un-glamorized. See the link above for example.

I think the problem we are seeing here is what even some older feminists have taken problem with lately, which is that some younger women are equating consensual sex that they don't enjoy with sexual assault and rape. That type of thought process will be the end of the fifteen minutes of fame for the #MeToo movement. A guy meets a girl, likes the girl, she likes him, they have sex. He never calls her back. He's a jerk, he's a womanizer, but he is far from a "rapist". When you begin to get into the thought process of rape "after the fact", things begin to become rather Orwellian.

You’re going round and round in circles and not saying much.

If it came out Obama barebacked a woman who has sex on camera with other guys for a living you would have called for his impeachment and possibly his death or imprisonment. Just stop it.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Not really.  But I do love watching the evangelicals jump through some pretty magnificent hoops to excuse or justify literally everything their guy says or does.  They are only contributing to their own demise and giving the mainliners a shot at running the spiritual conversation within Christianity for a change.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I'm sick of all the Evangelical bashing.

Yeah, you guys are getting a nice taste of what you've been doing to LGBT people for the past half-century.  Don't worry, you won't be disowned by your parents and be forced to experience homelessness.

(Although if I had a kid who came out to me as evangelical, well we would have to have a serious chat about how their lifestyle choice is damning them for eternity.)

[BlueSwan]

White Evangelicals are trash. 

Harsh. But unfortunately seemingly true - at least in a general sense. I'm sure there's a few decent non-hypocritical white evangelicals out there. They should speak up.

[Progressive Pessimist]

White Evangelicals are trash. 

Harsh. But unfortunately seemingly true - at least in a general sense. I'm sure there's a few decent non-hypocritical white evangelicals out there. They should speak up.

There are at least 18% of them.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Of course not. We should be focusing on Trump’s terrible policy and the fact that he’s ruining our country, not tabloid gossip.

Yep. Between the Austin Bombings, the death of Stephon Clark, the March for our Lives, etc. the Daniels story seems another example of the media making a problem bigger than it seems. Not that it isn't a problem, but there are bigger problems out there, like Trump's policies.

[Peanut]

The sexual aspect isn't that impotant (although some peoples' hypocrisy regarding it is), what's important is the blackmail and the keep-quiet-money alleged.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Of course not. We should be focusing on Trump’s terrible policy and the fact that he’s ruining our country, not tabloid gossip.

Yep. Between the Austin Bombings, the death of Stephon Clark, the March for our Lives, etc. the Daniels story seems another example of the media making a problem bigger than it seems. Not that it isn't a problem, but there are bigger problems out there, like Trump's policies.

I go back and forth on this one.

On the one hand, I sort of despair at how the media works against rational thought and in favor of eyeballs. Trump's petty sins acting as a sort of smokescreen for his grand stupidity and evil is a very large problem. I think it's how we ended up with President Trump (R-Moscow) in the first place.


On the other hand, it seems like it may actually be an effective weapon against him. (The lack of direct tweeting on the issue from the Chief Twit speaks volumes.) And there may be a very real issue of campaign finance violation or other illegalities involved.

[new_patomic]

It's good tabloid gossip. I enjoy the drama of it all.

But politically not at all. There's a scandal here in that they lied about it, paid her to cover it up, plausibly committed a big campaign finance violation in the process, and not to mention the sheer hypocrisy of much of the right for pretending his many many transgressions just don't matter. But we already knew all of that, basically. I'm going to go off on a limb and say a lot of people who voted for him did it knowing full well that he had a reputation as a 'playboy,' not to even tough the allegations of sexual harassment pre-election. so a one time consensual affair with a porn star in 2006 just doesn't really register.

The 'there' with this story is we have more proof of how scummy Trump is, but didn't we already know that?

Though who knows, maybe in the next few weeks trump loses his cool and starts going after her on twitter and digs a deeper hole for himself. Anything can happen, I guess.

[gottsu]

Mostly as the news are following this story. I sometimes tune to CNN, MSNBC or other Fox and see their coverage, see the Daniels's lawyers, but my personal coverage mostly ends on that. That is not a big deal. This can as well subside within some time.

[fluffypanther19]

nah, the interview was good tv; but i really dont care tbh

[Frodo]

I care about it to the extent that it reveals the highly disturbing fact that a porn star is more credible than the (current) President of the United States.  

We cannot go any lower than this. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

White Evangelicals are trash. 

If anyone here said this about Muslims, they would be banned.  And, no, there would be no mitigation for "context".

Why are you so special?

Where are the hordes posting how bigoted you are?

Where's ProudModerate2 when you need him?

[Fuzzy Bear]

White Evangelicals are trash. 

Harsh. But unfortunately seemingly true - at least in a general sense. I'm sure there's a few decent non-hypocritical white evangelicals out there. They should speak up.

And if someone posted this about Muslims, would it be OK?

Respond.  Don't be a coward.

And be consistent, if it's possible.

[Beet]

White Evangelicals are trash. 

Harsh. But unfortunately seemingly true - at least in a general sense. I'm sure there's a few decent non-hypocritical white evangelicals out there. They should speak up.

And if someone posted this about Muslims, would it be OK?

Respond.  Don't be a coward.

And be consistent, if it's possible.

Of course these sentiments are not, and should not be, ok. There's an implicit recognition that Muslims are a tiny minority with no power whereas Evangelicals are a massive bloc controlling the country's politics. But no one should be insulted.

[DrScholl]

What is concerning is the payoff. If Trump would payoff someone to keep quiet about a tryst it makes you wonder what else he will pay to cover up or already has. There is also the fact that she says that she was threatened.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What is concerning is the payoff. If Trump would payoff someone to keep quiet about a tryst it makes you wonder what else he will pay to cover up or already has. There is also the fact that she says that she was threatened.

Threatened with what?  A lawsuit?  That's not being threatened.

I have facilitated Batterers Intervention Groups, and I have had members of those groups defend their actions by saying "She threatened me!".  When I pressed them as to what that means, they would often say that they were threatened with divorce, a lawsuit, a restraining order, or some other kind of legal action.

That's not a "threat"; that's advising someone that they will pursue a legal remedy for a problem.  It's not a "threat".  If Stormy Daniels signed a non-disclosure agreement and Trump indicated he's sue if she broke the agreement, that's not "being threatened"; that's Trump advising her of what remedy he is considering.

Needless to say, Trump shouldn't have fallen into this temptation, but he seems to be unable to help himself any more than Bill Clinton or Bush 41.

[DrScholl]

What is concerning is the payoff. If Trump would payoff someone to keep quiet about a tryst it makes you wonder what else he will pay to cover up or already has. There is also the fact that she says that she was threatened.

Threatened with what?  A lawsuit?  That's not being threatened.

I have facilitated Batterers Intervention Groups, and I have had members of those groups defend their actions by saying "She threatened me!".  When I pressed them as to what that means, they would often say that they were threatened with divorce, a lawsuit, a restraining order, or some other kind of legal action.

That's not a "threat"; that's advising someone that they will pursue a legal remedy for a problem.  It's not a "threat".  If Stormy Daniels signed a non-disclosure agreement and Trump indicated he's sue if she broke the agreement, that's not "being threatened"; that's Trump advising her of what remedy he is considering.

Needless to say, Trump shouldn't have fallen into this temptation, but he seems to be unable to help himself any more than Bill Clinton or Bush 41.

I'm not going to read all of that, but I will say that Stormy Daniels has stated that she was approached by a man in a parking garage while she was with her baby and told her to leave Trump alone. He then looked at her baby and said it would be terrible if something happened to her mother. That is is a threat.

[Beet]

What is concerning is the payoff. If Trump would payoff someone to keep quiet about a tryst it makes you wonder what else he will pay to cover up or already has. There is also the fact that she says that she was threatened.

Threatened with what?  A lawsuit?  That's not being threatened.

I have facilitated Batterers Intervention Groups, and I have had members of those groups defend their actions by saying "She threatened me!".  When I pressed them as to what that means, they would often say that they were threatened with divorce, a lawsuit, a restraining order, or some other kind of legal action.

That's not a "threat"; that's advising someone that they will pursue a legal remedy for a problem.  It's not a "threat".  If Stormy Daniels signed a non-disclosure agreement and Trump indicated he's sue if she broke the agreement, that's not "being threatened"; that's Trump advising her of what remedy he is considering.

Needless to say, Trump shouldn't have fallen into this temptation, but he seems to be unable to help himself any more than Bill Clinton or Bush 41.

The difference is that Stormy Daniels isn't seeking to defend her physically battering Trump. Nor has she ever physically battered Trump. Comparing her to a physical batterer is deeply unfair to her.

Further, she stated that "And a guy walked up on me and said to me, 'Leave Trump alone. Forget the story.' And then he leaned around and looked at my daughter and said, 'That's a beautiful little girl. It'd be a shame if something happened to her mom.' And then he was gone."

That's not a threat of legal action. That's a threat of physical harm.

[ChinaSoc]

Stormy Daniels is another distraction pushed by the mainstream media to ignore important issues like the Yemeni genocide and Israel shooting disarmed people at Gaza. Same for russiagate.