The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:
 Can't say that I really care about Avenatti one way or the other.  Stormy Daniels is the principal in the case, I doubt she will have much trouble finding someone else to represent her interests.
That said, for someone like you who embraces every pussy grabber, rapist and wife beater who rises to prominence in the GOP (and there are so many of them these days) I find your outrage a bit hypocritical.

 

BG9 said:
Here you are again, supporting the unsupportable. Gloating and wishing that Avenatti's issues will dirty his clients. The problem is there is a paper trail supporting Daniels, like the payoff and the legal agreement that pussy grabber tried to suppress.

What is your psychology that makes you defender of the vile and odious, like pussy grabbers? You get like a tingle when you defend them? You also get a tingle in Church professing your love for God, Jesus, Mother Mary, the Saints? Very interesting.
Our anti-Christian professed Christian.

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

yes, mtierney, we remember well that you were more upset at the word than the fact that your preferred candidate bragged about grabbing them.

Interesting moral compass that.

I still maintain that Avenatti is a creep. He basically uses trump's own methods against him, which finds a lot of support. Me, I find Trump's methods despicable, so I am not a big fan of Avenatti either.

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:
 Can't say that I really care about Avenatti one way or the other.  Stormy Daniels is the principal in the case, I doubt she will have much trouble finding someone else to represent her interests.
That said, for someone like you who embraces every pussy grabber, rapist and wife beater who rises to prominence in the GOP (and there are so many of them these days) I find your outrage a bit hypocritical.

 

BG9 said:
Here you are again, supporting the unsupportable. Gloating and wishing that Avenatti's issues will dirty his clients. The problem is there is a paper trail supporting Daniels, like the payoff and the legal agreement that pussy grabber tried to suppress.

What is your psychology that makes you defender of the vile and odious, like pussy grabbers? You get like a tingle when you defend them? You also get a tingle in Church professing your love for God, Jesus, Mother Mary, the Saints? Very interesting.
Our anti-Christian professed Christian.

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

 Selective disgust.

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:
 Can't say that I really care about Avenatti one way or the other.  Stormy Daniels is the principal in the case, I doubt she will have much trouble finding someone else to represent her interests.
That said, for someone like you who embraces every pussy grabber, rapist and wife beater who rises to prominence in the GOP (and there are so many of them these days) I find your outrage a bit hypocritical.

 

BG9 said:
Here you are again, supporting the unsupportable. Gloating and wishing that Avenatti's issues will dirty his clients. The problem is there is a paper trail supporting Daniels, like the payoff and the legal agreement that pussy grabber tried to suppress.

What is your psychology that makes you defender of the vile and odious, like pussy grabbers? You get like a tingle when you defend them? You also get a tingle in Church professing your love for God, Jesus, Mother Mary, the Saints? Very interesting.
Our anti-Christian professed Christian.

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

 Mr. Trump gave himself that moniker.  Not intentionally, but he's still responsible since he used both words in a famous sentence.

I believe the posts are reactions to the salacious use of the comment here.  

mtierney said:
I believe the posts are reactions to the salacious use of the comment here.  

But when your president uses it to describe his assaults, it's out of love and respect for women.

You have to understand Mtierney.  She's a conservative.  Now, when it comes to personal behavior, being conservative means that it is OK to do all manner of things, but it is NOT OK to talk about these things.  And being a social conservative means adhering to a doctrine of do as I say, not as I do.

mtierney said:
I believe the posts are reactions to the salacious use of the comment here.  

I believe that posts using those words are reactions to the acceptance of Trump's salacious comments by his supporters.

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:
 Can't say that I really care about Avenatti one way or the other.  Stormy Daniels is the principal in the case, I doubt she will have much trouble finding someone else to represent her interests.
That said, for someone like you who embraces every pussy grabber, rapist and wife beater who rises to prominence in the GOP (and there are so many of them these days) I find your outrage a bit hypocritical.

 

BG9 said:
Here you are again, supporting the unsupportable. Gloating and wishing that Avenatti's issues will dirty his clients. The problem is there is a paper trail supporting Daniels, like the payoff and the legal agreement that pussy grabber tried to suppress.

What is your psychology that makes you defender of the vile and odious, like pussy grabbers? You get like a tingle when you defend them? You also get a tingle in Church professing your love for God, Jesus, Mother Mary, the Saints? Very interesting.
Our anti-Christian professed Christian.

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

You are offended? Bad taste? Spare me.

Who started pussy grabber? Your hero, our president. Proudly bragging that being a rich man of power allows him to grab pussies.

Now you are offended because we call him what he himself is proud of? That's rich. I don't remember you being offended it is good to be pussy grabber when what he said came out.

Spare me your hypocrisy.

LOST said:
Presumed innocent.

 

mtierney said:
just like Kavanaugh was

with Kavanaugh we heard testimony under oath.  All that we've heard regarding Avenatti is an allegation.  That's a pretty substantial difference in terms of what kinds of conclusions can be drawn regarding guilt or innocence.

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:
 Can't say that I really care about Avenatti one way or the other.  Stormy Daniels is the principal in the case, I doubt she will have much trouble finding someone else to represent her interests.
That said, for someone like you who embraces every pussy grabber, rapist and wife beater who rises to prominence in the GOP (and there are so many of them these days) I find your outrage a bit hypocritical.

 

BG9 said:
Here you are again, supporting the unsupportable. Gloating and wishing that Avenatti's issues will dirty his clients. The problem is there is a paper trail supporting Daniels, like the payoff and the legal agreement that pussy grabber tried to suppress.

What is your psychology that makes you defender of the vile and odious, like pussy grabbers? You get like a tingle when you defend them? You also get a tingle in Church professing your love for God, Jesus, Mother Mary, the Saints? Very interesting.
Our anti-Christian professed Christian.

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

seems kind of snowflakey to object to this term.  but I guess if conservatives are triggered by it, it would be polite to stop using it.  Sexual-assaulter-in-chief might be a good substitute.

ml1 said:

mtierney said:
So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

seems kind of snowflakey to object to this term.  but I guess if conservatives are triggered by it, it would be polite to stop using it.  Sexual-assaulter-in-chief might be a good substitute.

Creep-in-Chief works for me.

So many names, so many that are appropriate.

Now, the Whiner-in-Chief, is whining about his wall. Threatening a government shutdown if congress does not fund his wall. If we do not pay for it.

I found this comment in the Wash Post:

Trump: WHO'S PAYING FOR THE WALL?!
Trump Fans: Mexico!
Mexic
Mexi
Mex
Me?

ml1 said:

LOST said:
Presumed innocent.

 

mtierney said:
just like Kavanaugh was

with Kavanaugh we heard testimony under oath.  All that we've heard regarding Avenatti is an allegation.  That's a pretty substantial difference in terms of what kinds of conclusions can be drawn regarding guilt or innocence.

Usually, the victim's statement in an assault designated as a domestic violence matter is signed under oath (albeit we don't know that such a victim's statement exists).  Alternatively, the basis for the criminal charges and its designation as domestic violence can instead be physical evidence (such as bruises, scrapped knuckles, etc). My professional experience is that police can, and frequently do, issue summonses based on physical injuries (separate and apart from a victim's statement).

PS Avenatti claims that he has been framed by the same people who tried to frame Mueller.  See  https://nypost.com/2018/11/15/mike-avenatti-blames-jacob-wohl-for-his-domestic-violence-arrest/.  We shall see.

nohero said:

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:
 Can't say that I really care about Avenatti one way or the other.  Stormy Daniels is the principal in the case, I doubt she will have much trouble finding someone else to represent her interests.
That said, for someone like you who embraces every pussy grabber, rapist and wife beater who rises to prominence in the GOP (and there are so many of them these days) I find your outrage a bit hypocritical.

 

BG9 said:
Here you are again, supporting the unsupportable. Gloating and wishing that Avenatti's issues will dirty his clients. The problem is there is a paper trail supporting Daniels, like the payoff and the legal agreement that pussy grabber tried to suppress.

What is your psychology that makes you defender of the vile and odious, like pussy grabbers? You get like a tingle when you defend them? You also get a tingle in Church professing your love for God, Jesus, Mother Mary, the Saints? Very interesting.
Our anti-Christian professed Christian.

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

 Mr. Trump gave himself that moniker.  Not intentionally, but he's still responsible since he used both words in a famous sentence.

I'm well aware of the famous sentence.  It's Klinker's moniker too now.  lol.  It reminds me of that other word/phrase on MOL - 'Benghazi'. 

BG9 said:

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Klinker said:
 Can't say that I really care about Avenatti one way or the other.  Stormy Daniels is the principal in the case, I doubt she will have much trouble finding someone else to represent her interests.
That said, for someone like you who embraces every pussy grabber, rapist and wife beater who rises to prominence in the GOP (and there are so many of them these days) I find your outrage a bit hypocritical.

 

BG9 said:
Here you are again, supporting the unsupportable. Gloating and wishing that Avenatti's issues will dirty his clients. The problem is there is a paper trail supporting Daniels, like the payoff and the legal agreement that pussy grabber tried to suppress.

What is your psychology that makes you defender of the vile and odious, like pussy grabbers? You get like a tingle when you defend them? You also get a tingle in Church professing your love for God, Jesus, Mother Mary, the Saints? Very interesting.
Our anti-Christian professed Christian.

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

You are offended? Bad taste? Spare me.
Who started pussy grabber? Your hero, our president. Proudly bragging that being a rich man of power allows him to grab pussies.
Now you are offended because we call him what he himself is proud of? That's rich. I don't remember you being offended it is good to be pussy grabber when what he said came out.
Spare me your hypocrisy.

 Spare us your infantile Trump like commentary.

lord_pabulum said:

nohero said:

mtierney said:

So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

 Mr. Trump gave himself that moniker.  Not intentionally, but he's still responsible since he used both words in a famous sentence.

I'm well aware of the famous sentence.  It's Klinker's moniker too now.  lol.  It reminds me of that other word/phrase on MOL - 'Benghazi'. 

RealityForAll said:

Usually, the victim's statement in an assault designated as a domestic violence matter is signed under oath (albeit we don't know that such a victim's statement exists).  Alternatively, the basis for the criminal charges and its designation as domestic violence can instead be physical evidence (such as bruises, scrapped knuckles, etc). My professional experience is that police can, and frequently do, issue summonses based on physical injuries (separate and apart from a victim's statement).


PS Avenatti claims that he has been framed by the same people who tried to frame Mueller.  See  https://nypost.com/2018/11/15/mike-avenatti-blames-jacob-wohl-for-his-domestic-violence-arrest/.  We shall see.

 but no one here commenting has seen any of that evidence.  So for the purposes of forming an opinion on guilt/innocence we know nothing about the Avenatti accusation.  On the other hand, we know a lot about the accusations by Ford and Ramirez against Kavanaugh.

Speaking of bad taste, here's the president speaking to Scalia's widow--who had 9 children--at the Medal of Freedom ceremony:

"You were very busy...wow...I always knew I liked him."

RealityForAll said:

My professional experience is that police can, and frequently do, issue summonses based on physical injuries (separate and apart from a victim's statement).

 IN NJ they are required to do so even if the victim objects.

recently a go fund me appeal was found to be fraudulent. Not surprising, since “there is a sucker born every day,” but it is shameful that legitimate calls for support by families gets a bit tarnished when scams by grifters are exposed. 

But, since it was first announced, I have wondered whether the fund set up by Dr. Ford and her husband to cover the expenses incurred in the Kavanaugh expose, was not tawdry and tasteless. What proof of need is required to set up a fund? Did the Fords present first class flight tickets, legal bills, hotel bills, etc etc? Did they have to prove they could not afford to pay these expenses? Or  is this yet another way social media is out of control?

Surely there is book deal on the horizon. 

mtierney said:
recently a go fund me appeal was found to be fraudulent. Not surprising, since “there is a sucker born every day,” but it is shameful that legitimate calls for support by families gets a bit tarnished when scams by grifters are exposed. 
But, since it was first announced, I have wondered whether the fund set up by Dr. Ford and her husband to cover the expenses incurred in the Kavanaugh expose, was not tawdry and tasteless. What proof of need is required to set up a fund? Did the Fords present first class flight tickets, legal bills, hotel bills, etc etc? Did they have to prove they could not afford to pay these expenses? Or  is this yet another way social media is out of control?
Surely there is book deal on the horizon. 

 do you not believe that the Fords needed to hire security guards?

mtierney said:
recently a go fund me appeal was found to be fraudulent. Not surprising, since “there is a sucker born every day,” but it is shameful that legitimate calls for support by families gets a bit tarnished when scams by grifters are exposed. 
But, since it was first announced, I have wondered whether the fund set up by Dr. Ford and her husband to cover the expenses incurred in the Kavanaugh expose, was not tawdry and tasteless. What proof of need is required to set up a fund? Did the Fords present first class flight tickets, legal bills, hotel bills, etc etc? Did they have to prove they could not afford to pay these expenses? Or  is this yet another way social media is out of control?
Surely there is book deal on the horizon. 

 Speaking of books, perhaps you can help this lady by buying her book, I Don't Believe Christine Blasey Ford. It's $7.98 and 68 pages long, but I'm sure it's worth it. I mean, we all have opinions based on our life experiences, and while many of us choose to bandy them about online for free, this author is selling hers about a woman she hasn't met, so I say go for it, why not?

mtierney said:

lord_pabulum said:

Why are MOLers so taken by the term "pussy grabber", it seems perverted and very Trumpite (i.e. a follower of an elected person and lowering oneself to the person's base tendencies). 

 So happy to see you pick up on this question. ( I knew if I had ever mentioned it, I would just see more dirty words here.) It is smutty talk done to titilate IMO. A certain poster revels in usage of the phrase. It does not shock me, rather his habitual use just disgusts me. Apparently, bad taste is catching, BG9.

 Lord Pablum, I use the term mainly because it highlights the hypocrisy of mtierney and any other conservative that has ever claimed to be guided by a moral compass.  

BG9 said:

You are offended? Bad taste? Spare me.

Who started pussy grabber? Your hero, our president. Proudly bragging that being a rich man of power allows him to grab pussies.
Now you are offended because we call him what he himself is proud of? That's rich. I don't remember you being offended it is good to be pussy grabber when what he said came out.
Spare me your hypocrisy.

 Indeed, he didn't just admit to grabbing women's vagina's, he BRAGGED about it.  Pussy grabbing is something that makes Trump proud.

The man is as vile as his supporters.

mtierney said:
recently a go fund me appeal was found to be fraudulent. Not surprising, since “there is a sucker born every day,” but it is shameful that legitimate calls for support by families gets a bit tarnished when scams by grifters are exposed. 
But, since it was first announced, I have wondered whether the fund set up by Dr. Ford and her husband to cover the expenses incurred in the Kavanaugh expose, was not tawdry and tasteless. What proof of need is required to set up a fund? Did the Fords present first class flight tickets, legal bills, hotel bills, etc etc? Did they have to prove they could not afford to pay these expenses? Or  is this yet another way social media is out of control?
Surely there is book deal on the horizon. 

I think it's an example of how the right wing demonizes people, that Dr. Blasey Ford is who you thought of.  Or, as Rush Limbaugh calls her, "Balsey Ford".  

how did my question “demonize” her? I wondered why the Fords had to appeal to the public to pay their expenses in the Kavanaugh allegations. I guess the taxpayers will pay the bills from the Washington hearings — which should be humongous!

mtierney said:
I wondered why the Fords had to appeal to the public to pay their expenses in the Kavanaugh allegations.

 Dr. Blasey's appeal on GoFundMe:

I cannot express how grateful I am for the outpouring of support and generosity that we have received through this GoFundMe account. I believed and still believe that it was my civic duty to come forward, but this is by far the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do, much harder even than I thought it would be. And not just for me, but for my husband and our sons, for my relatives who still live in the Washington area, and the friends who have stood up on my behalf.

I feel like all of you who have made a contribution are on this journey with me, which is very heartening. And some journey it has been and continues to be. We have already had to move four times, our movements are limited even with security, and the threats are ongoing. Thanks to you, I am able to feel safe, my family can be together, and my children can continue to go to school.

The costs for security, housing, transportation and other related expenses are much higher than we anticipated and they do not show signs of letting up. Funds received via this account will be used to help us pay for these mounting expenses.

Please know how much we appreciate your moral support and your contribution,

Christine

As mentioned in an earlier thread, a GoFundMe page set up by a Kavanaugh's supporter raised a similar amount of money for him.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-tuesday-christine-blasey-ford-gofundme-1002-story.html

interesting link. Doesn’t change my sense that the Go Fund Me approach is a misuse of the concept. GFM should not be politicized.  

mtierney said:
interesting link. Doesn’t change my sense that the Go Fund Me approach is a misuse of the concept. GFM should not be politicized.  

 Effin' clueless !