CDZ What did you all think of the 60 minutes Stormy interview?

[hadit]

I might actually ask you the same, but having a conversation with someone that thinks there is no point to reporting a threat against a child is pointless once the creep has left, ABOUT CREDIBILITY, is in and of itself POINTLESS!

So you can't answer this one either. Now who saw that coming.

Suppose she did a police report --- what the fuck are the police supposed to do with it? Put up signs in the parking lot warning "Do Not Make Threats Against Mothers Getting Out of Their Car"?

Or don't you think that far ahead?

Good God you are a pathetic fool. Go ahead and try to justify the Porn Star not reporting a threat against her child all you want, it puts you in moron of the month club.

So --------------- you can't answer this one either.

Again, quelle surprise.

By the way speaking of reading comprehension -- the threat described was against the mother, not the child.

She said she thought her child was in danger. Was she lying, trying to increase sympathy by using her child?

Are y'all wilfully illiterate, or do you just not bother to read quotes?

Once AGAIN ---- "that's a beautiful little girl -- it would be a shame if something happened TO HER MOM" is a threat on the MOTHER, NOT ON THE CHILD.

And that is delivering an incentive to that mother to keep quiet about it --- the same incentive a check for $130,000 with an attached NDA delivers, for the same purpose, via a more aggressive approach. To the same end.

And that also means it's advising the threatee --- that's once again the mother if you remember two sentences ago --- to forget the whole thing and walk away.... which absolutely includes not doing an interview, not going public, and not "going to the police".

Holy SHIT y'all can suspend yourselves a shitload of reality.

She's the one claiming she thought her child was threatened. Thus, it is valid to talk about her actions in the situation. It simply doesn't matter whether the threat was toward her or her child, if a mother THINKS her child is threatened, you expect her to act in certain ways.

Maybe she's stretching the truth to gain sympathy.

 

[Pogo]

While you're at this game of not being able to explain your premises, you might want to go back to this one and tell the class on what basis you believe the whole world buys into this "report it to the police" crapola.

We never got the reasoning for that either.

You got the report!

Please show it!

What the fuck would there be to "report" about a person who had already left the scene?

What would be the point?

For the police to keep an eye out for a man fitting that description hanging around. You know, due diligence, that sort of thing. To have them check recordings from security cameras if any were active in the address. Also, to get it on the record with the police that you were threatened. I can't believe you don't think of these things.

Number one, why would a guy on that mission, having delivered that message, "hang around"? "Hang around" for --- what?

Number two, there may have been no security cameras (the incident having been years ago) and/or the message may have been calculated to be delivered where there indeed were no working cameras. We don't know. And even if there were security cameras they would have shown a person --- they don't record conversations.

And number three, what the fuck is the point of having a police report "on the record"? Where does that get you? Had you ever filed one you'd have an inkling what this question means. Police can't do shit if they don't see it happening and there's no evidence left behind.

Or didn't you know that? You think police have magic wands?

1. You don't know what goes through a person's mind. Someone who is capable of threatening a stranger is not necessarily thinking rationally. You do know that, right?

No I don't "know" that at all. The world doesn't work that way. A threat like that is calculated. It's not some spontaneous random ramble delivered on a whim. She would have been followed and watched, maybe for a pattern, for an opening where that message could be delivered, in a few seconds, and then the messenger is gone while it sinks in. It's planned that way deliberately. The whole point is getting the message to the threat target and ONLY to the threat target, period.

So again the unanswered question was --- WHY would somebody sent to deliver a threat message ---- "hang around" after that mission was completed? What the hell for?

2. The incident supposedly occurred in 2011. That's not exactly the dark ages when security cameras are concerned. I don't know, and you don't know if the area was covered or not, but it's irrelevant to the larger point, which is why you might call the police if you think your child is threatened.

If it's 'irrelevant' then why did you bring it up?
Once again, a security camera would only show people walking around. It cannot show the message being delivered, which is the whole point here.

Let's say there is a security camera, and it clearly records the whole thing and gets a sharp picture of the messenger. Let's further go down the rabbit hole of improbability and stipulate that (a) Stormy does file a police report, and (b) the police actually do find the guy. What they have is a video of two people in a parking lot in proximity to each other for ten seconds. Suppose they ask him what if anything he was talking about with the woman, and he says he said "nice day isn't it". What the fuck do you expect the police to do with that?

3. Why would you want to file a police report if a total stranger walked up to you and threatened your child? Oh, brother. Might as well not file a report if your house is broken into while you're gone. They can't do anything after all.

Number two, if my house is broken into there would be actual physical evidence. That's how *I* would know about it in the first place. There is no actual physical evidence of a spoken threat unless it's recorded.

And number one -- once AGAIN y'all are being wilfully illiterate. I even PRINTED the alleged threat quote, and here you are STILL setting up strawmen.

WHAT IS THE OBJECT IN THE PHRASE "TO HER MOTHER"? Is it "child"? Written in invisible ink?

She's the one claiming she thought her child was threatened.

Oh, is she now.

Link?

This cockamamie child's game of changing the backstory because you can't handle it on its own terms is going to get called out literally every time y'all try to pull it. Got me?

 

[Pogo]

>> "Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, made a phone call to Bill Sammon and tried to get me booted off the debate team," she [Megyn Kelly] wrote. "When Sammon told him that was out of the question, Lewandowski threatened me, saying I'd had a 'rough couple of days after that last debate,' and he 'would hate to have [me] go through that again.' The tone was unmistakable. Sammon warned Lewandowski that he was out of line. I was far from the only woman or reporter Lewandowski had threatened." << -- Daniels Threat "Sounds Familiar"​

More:

>> After Stormy Daniels spoke out about being threatened following her 2006 affair with Donald Trump on 60 Minutes, Megyn Kelly pointed out that his personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, has a “history of threatening women” — including herself.

The Megyn Kelly Today host, 47, shared portions of her 2016 book, Settle for More, on Twitter Sunday, which detail her own experiences with members of Trump’s team. She recalled an incident when Cohen retweeted numerous threatening messages, including a person who wrote “#boycottmegynkelly @realDonaldTrump we can gut her.”

“Gut her,” Kelly reiterated in her book. “For the first time, I felt alarmed.”

The journalist also shared an excerpt from her book about former Daily Beast reporter Tim Mak allegedly being warned by Cohen not to write a piece about Trump’s divorce from first wife Ivana.

“I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still dont have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know,” Cohen allegedly threatened Mak. “So I’m warning you, tread very f–ing lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be f–ing disgusting.” --- Similar Threats Noted by Megyn Kelly​

 

[Pete7469]

Got it. You can belittle a gal who claims to sleep with rich powerful men and its not a character flaw but Hillary can't.

?

Really I say this not just to you but to everyone who is ridiculing Stormy who used Hillary's treatment of women who CLAIMED they slept with HER husband as a talking point last election.

Fair and balanced is the rule of the day.

BTW, JFK had a beautiful wife and slept around. Not sure if it really put the country at serious risk, but it did not help for sure. (just to be fair and balanced myself)

I'm just some obscure asshole on a political forum. I am not in an elected office where integrity should be important.

I'm not surprised you don't see the difference there either.

hitlery worked to destroy the credibility of women who had a hell of a lot more credibility than a washed up video cum dumpster. hitlery then insisted that every other woman in the world who accused any other man on earth deserved to be believed.

I'm not surprised you're still worried about being perceived as "fair and balanced" when it's pretty obvious you are willing to excuse everything that sociopath hag did, no matter how egregious, if you can assert that people who condemn her and the cum dumpster are being hypocrites.

The bar wasn't just lowered by the Clintons, it was thrown down the Kola Bore Hole the soviets drilled for the DNC's ethical standard's in the 70's.

 

[Toronado3800]

Got it. You can belittle a gal who claims to sleep with rich powerful men and its not a character flaw but Hillary can't.

?

Really I say this not just to you but to everyone who is ridiculing Stormy who used Hillary's treatment of women who CLAIMED they slept with HER husband as a talking point last election.

Fair and balanced is the rule of the day.

BTW, JFK had a beautiful wife and slept around. Not sure if it really put the country at serious risk, but it did not help for sure. (just to be fair and balanced myself)

I'm just some obscure asshole on a political forum. I am not in an elected office where integrity should be important.

I'm not surprised you don't see the difference there either.

hitlery worked to destroy the credibility of women who had a hell of a lot more credibility than a washed up video cum dumpster. hitlery then insisted that every other woman in the world who accused any other man on earth deserved to be believed.

I'm not surprised you're still worried about being perceived as "fair and balanced" when it's pretty obvious you are willing to excuse everything that sociopath hag did, no matter how egregious, if you can assert that people who condemn her and the cum dumpster are being hypocrites.

The bar wasn't just lowered by the Clintons, it was thrown down the Kola Bore Hole the soviets drilled for the DNC's ethical standard's in the 70's.

Fair and balanced. Bill 100% sure cheated on Hillary. I can't say the same for Donald and the recent mother of his child but I think he did.

Fair and balanced, I don't ridicule people for doing something I do. I might say, now I cuss sometimes also and I'm working on it son, but I try to be realistic.

Come join me. You are equally as good as Hillary. Hold yourself to as high a standard.

 

[Moonglow]

What did you all think of the 60 minutes Stormy interview?

Not near as good as the one she did on PornHub.

 

[flacaltenn]

What could wrong with a thread about an aging porn star playing politics in the CLEAN DEBATE forum?

Congrats for it making it 10 pages without serious XXX rating. Never would have thunk it. Hope you enjoyed it. Because I'm not cleaning 15 pages of it to KEEP it clean. But I might issue a few warnings for those who KNEW they were in CDZ and still violated the rules.

It's best not to put volatile current events into the CDZ. Because by definition, all the facts and testimony are not in yet. ESPECIALLY if it's salacious in nature. It won't last in the CDZ..