Hookers LIE?....Who Knew?

[jc456]

There's nothing "private" about banging a subordinate employee in the Oval office, moron.

Nobody ever claimed they had sex in the Oval Office

Clinton was trying to pay her off before she squeeled by getting her a high paying job on Madison Avenue.

She had a $40K job working at the Pentagon. Hardly glamorous.

He was also coaching her potential testimony, which means he suborned perjury.

Except she never testified... and any good lawyer will tell you to not to admit to anything on the stand.

On the other hand, you can't blame Trump when gold digging whores start shaking him down for cash. Stormy hasn't admits she doesn't have one shred of tangible evidence that she had sex with Trump. No voice mails, no phone logs, no texts, no emails.

the proof is the $130K payoff and the NDA.

You boy banged a porn star. Now, normally, I'd totally respect that, but when it includes stuff like, "You look like my daughter", there's just a huge Ick factor.

Is proof of what?

 

[Pop23]

[

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Okay, but here's the thing.

We wouldn't have whores if we didn't have people willing to pay them.

Now, personally, I think we should legalize prostitution and make it like any other profession. Why should selling sex be less shameful than selling your creativity or physical labor.

In the case of Ms. Daniels, she's someone who is attractive enough where people want to watch her have sex and pay to have sex with her. Good for her, I guess.

Meanwhile, Trump has all this fame, all this popularity, is married to a super-model, and he STILL has to pay to get some, and then pay more to keep her quiet about it.

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

 

[JoeB131]

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

I'd trust a whore before I'd trust Trump. Trump doesn't even know what the truth is.

 

[Pop23]

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

I'd trust a whore before I'd trust Trump. Trump doesn't even know what the truth is.

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

 

[Pogo]

Nope- she took $130,000 to not talk about the sex she had with Donald Trump

Isn’t that what you pay a prostitute for?

I have never been with a prostitute- so if that is what you do- well I acknowledge your greater experience.

But according to rumors- johns pay prostitutes for having sex with them.

Politicians pay prostitutes to keep quiet about that sex so that they can get elected.

I never been with a prostitute either however if a person has half a brain, you pay a prostitute for sex and to keep quiet so it doesn’t get back to your significant other. Are you really that dumb?

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

 

[Pogo]

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

I'd trust a whore before I'd trust Trump. Trump doesn't even know what the truth is.

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

He didn't take a "leap" at all --- YOU did. You did it the other day, I called you on it, and you still can't back it up even now.

You're trying to equate prostitution -- sex for hire -- with "credibility". You cannot build that bridge and we all know it. A prostitute enters into a business arrangement like any other deal. Unless she fails to hold up her end, there's no "credibility" factor even involved there. If two parties enter into an agreement, and they both do what they agreed to do --- where's the credibility issue?

Hm? Where?

Again, this is an irrelevant tangent since nobody has claimed this event to be 'prostitution' anyway.

 

[Pogo]

Watching the liberals hang on every word of a porn star recanting every detail as fact yet dismissed the many woman that came forward accusing the guy of your gal of abuse.

Funny how Monica was a slut and Daniels is a hero.

Sad how some people feel a need to label women as sluts or whores.

Equally sad some wags around here doggedly want to impinge a woman's "credibility" based on promiscuity, yet can't find the same standard when the promiscuous one is male.

Amirite Pop?

 

[Pogo]

Watching the liberals hang on every word of a porn star recanting every detail as fact yet dismissed the many woman that came forward accusing the guy of your gal of abuse.

Funny how Monica was a slut and Daniels is a hero.

Sad how some people feel a need to label women as sluts or whores.

It's sad how desperate you are to convince us all the a gold digging whore is credible.

It's much sadder that you and Corn Pops want to float this specious premise that she's not credible, and when pressed to explain why, y'all can only go "humma humma humma".

Y'all should have seen that coming. When you float a turd point, be prepared to back it up. "Humma humma humma" doesn't do that.

Actually the only bridge even attempted to that conclusion has been that the female has had X number of sexual encounters, therefore "not credible". Though we are left to guess exactly what that threshold number is, when I then turn it around and inquire, on the same basis what does that tell us about Rump's credibility ----- y'all run away and hide.

As I just said --- float a premise, be prepared to defend it. With SOMETHING.

 

[Pogo]

There are only two kinds of women in this world:

1. whores
2. lying whores

Which one are you?

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Once AGAIN, nobody's claiming this was a monetary transaction. The only even distant reference to it was Stormy's recounting how she was hoping he was NOT about to try to pay her. Or did that fly over your head?

 

[jc456]

There are only two kinds of women in this world:

1. whores
2. lying whores

Which one are you?

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Once AGAIN, nobody's claiming this was a monetary transaction. The only even distant reference to it was Stormy's recounting how she was hoping he was NOT about to try to pay her. Or did that fly over your head?

WTF?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Stormy is a prostitute

Link?

Yeah right...I'm gonna link you to a porn site and get banned? I was born at night but it wasn't last night, fool.

No, you're gonna link me to evidence that she's a "prostitute". Which is what you posted.

Either that, or by failing to do so you're going to admit you're a liar.

She admitted it on 60Min.... WOW you really are desperate..

 

[Pop23]

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

I'd trust a whore before I'd trust Trump. Trump doesn't even know what the truth is.

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

He didn't take a "leap" at all --- YOU did. You did it the other day, I called you on it, and you still can't back it up even now.

You're trying to equate prostitution -- sex for hire -- with "credibility". You cannot build that bridge and we all know it. A prostitute enters into a business arrangement like any other deal. Unless she fails to hold up her end, there's no "credibility" factor even involved there. If two parties enter into an agreement, and they both do what they agreed to do --- where's the credibility issue?

Hm? Where?

Again, this is an irrelevant tangent since nobody has claimed this event to be 'prostitution' anyway.

That “bridge” was built long before I came along.

But why bother arguing with someone who thinks crime should not be reported once the criminal flees the scene?

 

[Pop23]

There are only two kinds of women in this world:

1. whores
2. lying whores

Which one are you?

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Once AGAIN, nobody's claiming this was a monetary transaction. The only even distant reference to it was Stormy's recounting how she was hoping he was NOT about to try to pay her. Or did that fly over your head?

Lol. So someone who reqularily takes pay for sex is credible in your eyes?

Go for it Son, the rest of the world is laughing at you.

 

[Pop23]

There are only two kinds of women in this world:

1. whores
2. lying whores

Which one are you?

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Once AGAIN, nobody's claiming this was a monetary transaction. The only even distant reference to it was Stormy's recounting how she was hoping he was NOT about to try to pay her. Or did that fly over your head?

WTF?

My favorite part was she felt obligated to have sex with someone she wasn’t attracted to because he bought her diner and used his bathroom!

Nope, those are CREDIBLE actions............









On the moon maybe

 

[Pogo]

Stormy is a prostitute

Link?

Yeah right...I'm gonna link you to a porn site and get banned? I was born at night but it wasn't last night, fool.

No, you're gonna link me to evidence that she's a "prostitute". Which is what you posted.

Either that, or by failing to do so you're going to admit you're a liar.

She admitted it on 60Min.... WOW you really are desperate..

Perhaps there was some massive nukyulur ignorace-bomb dropped, and its fallout is preventing people from figuring out what "link" means. I dunno.

"Link" means evidence for your ipse dixit. It means a quote backing up your claim.
Simply posting what you'd like to be true on a message board in no way constitutes any kind of "evidence" o anything.

So once again ----------------- LINK?

 

[Pogo]

There are only two kinds of women in this world:

1. whores
2. lying whores

Which one are you?

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Once AGAIN, nobody's claiming this was a monetary transaction. The only even distant reference to it was Stormy's recounting how she was hoping he was NOT about to try to pay her. Or did that fly over your head?

Lol. So someone who reqularily takes pay for sex is credible in your eyes?

Go for it Son, the rest of the world is laughing at you.

The question is not whether she's "credible". The question is whether she's NOT credible.

That's, once again, *****YOUR***** premise. One you've floated in the toilet bowl for several days now without any kind of justification at all. Because there isn't any. You know it and I already knew it.

 

[Pogo]

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

I'd trust a whore before I'd trust Trump. Trump doesn't even know what the truth is.

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

He didn't take a "leap" at all --- YOU did. You did it the other day, I called you on it, and you still can't back it up even now.

You're trying to equate prostitution -- sex for hire -- with "credibility". You cannot build that bridge and we all know it. A prostitute enters into a business arrangement like any other deal. Unless she fails to hold up her end, there's no "credibility" factor even involved there. If two parties enter into an agreement, and they both do what they agreed to do --- where's the credibility issue?

Hm? Where?

Again, this is an irrelevant tangent since nobody has claimed this event to be 'prostitution' anyway.

That “bridge” was built long before I came along.

Was it now.

Then why can't you find it?

You've had, what, ten different challenges to demonstrate that bridge, and days later you still can't find it? Ten proverbial trips to the batter's box, each one watching three strikes whiz by. Not even an attempt to swing.

Yet it doesn't dawn on you that the reason you can't find it is that it doesn't exist?

That's a special kind of Stupid. Does it hurt?

But why bother arguing with someone who thinks crime should not be reported once the criminal flees the scene?

No idea. Perhaps you could go find such a person instead of just making shit up.

 

[Billo_Really]

Which one are you?

I never lie.

 

[jc456]

There are only two kinds of women in this world:

1. whores
2. lying whores

Which one are you?

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Once AGAIN, nobody's claiming this was a monetary transaction. The only even distant reference to it was Stormy's recounting how she was hoping he was NOT about to try to pay her. Or did that fly over your head?

Lol. So someone who reqularily takes pay for sex is credible in your eyes?

Go for it Son, the rest of the world is laughing at you.

The question is not whether she's "credible". The question is whether she's NOT credible.

That's, once again, *****YOUR***** premise. One you've floated in the toilet bowl for several days now without any kind of justification at all. Because there isn't any. You know it and I already knew it.

That’s for all to judge. Me? I laughed my ass off how foolish they made her look by the rehearsed questions and answers

 

[Billo_Really]

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

I think George Carlin said it best...

"I don't understand why prostitution is illegal? Selling is legal. And fucking is legal. So why is selling fucking illegal? Why is illegal to sell something, that is perfectly legal to give away?"​