Comment

British PM Theresa May: "Highly Likely" Russia Is Responsible for Spy's Poisoning

133
KGxvi3/12/2018 1:26:06 pm PDT

re: #109 Anymouse šŸŒ¹

Deconstructing this:

a) she already said she would repay the money (hence the PR coup, all responses Trump can give show him a liar or a hypocrite along with the Christians who support him)

b) whatā€™s wrong with producing or staring in a parody adult film? I have no problems with women doing legal things with their own bodies (just as men do with weekly bruises and contusions in the NFL) for pay, or writing a book for pay (thatā€™s what all writers do).

c) They can argue all they want that the agreement was completed. That means there was an agreement. Why would a politician need an agreement with an adult film actress at all unless that politician was trying to cover up his association with her?

d) I have no issues with women who wish to go into that industry, provided it is a freely entered contract. Porn is one of the few jobs where women earn more money than men.

e) Ms. Daniels never went bankrupt. She is a successful business woman. (There are women porn stars in Mensa. Porn is not equal to stupid.)

f) I didnā€™t hide my own job as an editor of erotic Romance novels when I ran for office. I figured I would stand or fall on the issues, not my legal employment. One of the books I edited is in our public library, signed by me as the editor of the book. I didnā€™t lie about my relationship to the industry and in this uber-conservative town I still got elected over a gun shop owner who previously sat on our board. It turns out voters like people who are honest.

Ok, going through these points:

a. Itā€™s not much of a PR coup, Trumpā€™s supporters arenā€™t going to leave him, heā€™s bottomed out. My point was more that, PR issues aside, if sheā€™s seeking to have the agreement voided, she would have to give back any money paid (there would also be the legal question of why she (and her attorney) accepted the payment without Trumpā€™s signature).

b. The point of the agreement, from Trumpā€™s view is to prevent her from making such films or books involving stories of him or characters based on him. So from their view, seeking to have the agreement nullified for those reasons would be legally improper.

c. Legally speaking, it doesnā€™t matter why they made the agreement, the question is whether the agreement is legally valid. Politically speaking, as I said in a. it doesnā€™t really matter because Trumpā€™s not going to lose anymore support, heā€™s hit his crazification factor.

d. No disagreement there.

e. Never suggested she went bankrupt or was a bad businessperson. Again, though, those points are irrelevant to the specific legal issue: whether the contract, based on the writing and actions of the parties, is valid. That she is a former porn star turned director and producer and that he is the worst president in American history mean nothing to the legal analysis.

f. I assume this goes to Trump trying to hide his relationship with a porn star. He made a poor tactical decision, in essence he fell victim to the honey pot. That is a sign of his (and his attorneyā€™s) stupidity and moral bankruptcy. But for a man with 40 years in the public eye, and who repeatedly demonstrated on the campaign trail that he is a genuinely terrible person, it doesnā€™t really matter. All of that is baked into the public perception of him. And as I said above, heā€™s not losing his base unless or until he nominates the in house counsel of NARAL or Planned Parenthood to the Supreme Court.