President Donald Trump

[B-Fly]

In the grand scheme is this Stormy thing even important? As someone on Twitter (where if you read you know it’s true) said he wasn’t getting BJs in the Oval Office. What have we really learned that we didn’t already know/heavily suspect? Nothing. He is ethically challenged and morally corrupt. How she got paid (funny my autocorrect changed that to “laid”) is maybe, or maybe not, important. I’m betting not, as he wasn’t elected President when he “dipped his pen in the non-government inkwell” and other than Melania’s vote against his behavior, it appears to have been consensual, between two people who knew exactly what they were doing. He: shtupping a pornstar. She: gettin paid! Pretty well, I might add. I would consider sleeping with Trump for $130,000! Consider.

Or him and Melania, who by the way is still fine, as the kids say.

Who am I kidding. I’m old.

It's only important to whatever extent it opens the door to discovery that leads investigators/prosecutors to discover something worse among the communications and records of Trump and his surrogates. Something like communications with Russian officials to influence the election, or even illegal and/or abhorrent thuggery in their efforts to secure her silence leading up to or after execution of the contract and the $130,000 payment. If it's just Trump reaching a contractual agreement with a former paramour where she agrees not to speak about their affair in exchange for cash, then it's not important at all.

[OaklandA's]

It's only important to whatever extent it opens the door to discovery that leads investigators/prosecutors to discover something worse among the communications and records of Trump and his surrogates. Something like communications with Russian officials to influence the election, or even illegal and/or abhorrent thuggery in their efforts to secure her silence leading up to or after execution of the contract and the $130,000 payment. If it's just Trump reaching a contractual agreement with a former paramour where she agrees not to speak about their affair in exchange for cash, then it's not important at all.

Another aspect to this is the blackmail factor. We've already seen with the Daniels and McDougal cases that Trump is willing to pay large sums of money to keep people quiet. Instead of payment, what if the demands were legislation or political appointments? This was one of the fears with the Russians - do they have something on Trump that explains why he is so reluctant to criticize Putin? Because we definitely know now that Trump has things in his past that he'll pay large sums to hide.

[Hornsby]

God, these people are just horrible, horrible...short sighted and without any empathy.

Over 50,000 Hondurans who were allowed to live and work in U.S. since 1999 must leave, according to DHS memos
The Department of Homeland Security will terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) of Hondurans who were shielded from deportation in 1999 after Hurricane Mitch struck their country. DHS will give them until January 2020 to leave the United States or find another way to obtain legal residency.

In the past six months, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has canceled TPS protections for 200,000 Salvadorans, 50,000 Haitians and 9,000 Nepalese, arguing that the short-term emergencies that prompted the designation no longer exist in those countries.

Critics of the Trump administration call the moves short-sighted and inhumane, noting the TPS recipients have tens of thousands of U.S-born children. Honduras is too violent and unstable to absorb so many returnees, they say, and the country is already a major source of illegal immigration to the United States.

WaPo Alerts...

[nullnor]

what kind of porn star name is stormy daniels. .. i wonder during the video if she says things like ' i'm so wet baby, i feel like my our tropical rain forest!'

[B-Fly]

Welp, there goes his Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/08/trump-expected-to-withdraw-from-iran-nuclear-deal.html

[nots]

Seems like a good move to me

[DMT]

Seems like a good move to me

Coming from a self-described libertarian, please explain why?

[nots]

Was never going to stop them from continuing their nuclear program. Waste of time. Weren’t they allowed to continue production after 2030 anyway? The less we are involved over there, the better.
PS-self described ‘quasi-liberatrian’. The whole ‘kill the Fed’ stuff the libs throw out all the time just kills any hope of becoming more mainstream.

[B-Fly]

Seems like a good move to me

Despite that every other party to the deal, the UK, France, Russia and China (plus obviously Iran) is saying that none of the Iranian commitments in the deal have been violated, and neither Trump nor Netanyahu nor anyone else has suggested they have evidence to the contrary?

https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17328520/iran-nuclear-deal-trump-withdraw

[Hornsby]

I think that it's just another typically shortsighted move by Trump. It's nothing more than a bone to his base, a "promise" that he kept from his campaign.

Better to stay involved, learn what you can, try to move the needle by being a part of the treaty. Being on the outside accomplishes exactly what?

[nots]

Great—let France, Russia, China et al carry the ball on this one.

[Sour Masher]

Great—let France, Russia, China et al carry the ball on this one.

Even if you didn't agree with the deal originally, don't you think it is a serious problem for our country long term to set the precedent that deals agreed to by our leaders can be broken by subsequent leaders without any evidence of breech of contract on those deals? Regardless on whether it was a good deal or not, I think it is a serious mistake to withdrawal from this deal without cause. It erodes trust from our allies and adversaries, and creates significant challenges in getting future deals done.

Edit: Trump seems to be pulling out primarily to set himself up as a tough guy when dealing with N. Korea. I think whatever edge is gained by doing that is not worth the loss of faith the international community has in us honoring commitments we make.

[nots]

Even if you didn't agree with the deal originally, don't you think it is a serious problem for our country long term to set the precedent that deals agreed to by our leaders can be broken by subsequent leaders without any evidence of breech of contract on those deals? Regardless on whether it was a good deal or not, I think it is a serious mistake to withdrawal from this deal without cause. It erodes trust from our allies and adversaries, and creates significant challenges in getting future deals done.

That’s a fair point

[B-Fly]

Even if you didn't agree with the deal originally, don't you think it is a serious problem for our country long term to set the precedent that deals agreed to by our leaders can be broken by subsequent leaders without any evidence of breech of contract on those deals? Regardless on whether it was a good deal or not, I think it is a serious mistake to withdrawal from this deal without cause. It erodes trust from our allies and adversaries, and creates significant challenges in getting future deals done.

Agreed and well stated.

[chancellor]

Even if you didn't agree with the deal originally, don't you think it is a serious problem for our country long term to set the precedent that deals agreed to by our leaders can be broken by subsequent leaders without any evidence of breech of contract on those deals?

Huh? They have at least two heavy water violations - see the IAEA documents https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...restricted.pdf and https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...gov2016-55.pdf

Iran has also been in violation of inspections under Section T of the agreement.

Now, the Obama administration saw fit not to pursue closing the agreement due to those breaches. We may (and probably will) disagree about the wisdom of not doing that, but that the violations occurred is both certain and documented.

It erodes trust from our allies and adversaries, and creates significant challenges in getting future deals done.

I think most of our allies and adversaries are smart enough to realize when a president lacks Senate support from his own party and subsequently does not submit the agreement to the Senate for treaty approval, the odds of an agreement surviving the president who agreed to it is slim at best.