The Swamp

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

You are absolutely right.

But, Trump was running a scorched earth primary campaign, lobbing personal insults at all Republicans standing in his way. Would he have listened to them if they made such a demand? Because by the time the GOP took him seriously, he already had an army of supporters at his beck and call.

Pruitt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:12 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

You are absolutely right.

But, Trump was running a scorched earth primary campaign, lobbing personal insults at all Republicans standing in his way. Would he have listened to them if they made such a demand? Because by the time the GOP took him seriously, he already had an army of supporters at his beck and call.

I think syb means the RNC should have put something in place from the early stages, back in 2015.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:13 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:12 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

You are absolutely right.

But, Trump was running a scorched earth primary campaign, lobbing personal insults at all Republicans standing in his way. Would he have listened to them if they made such a demand? Because by the time the GOP took him seriously, he already had an army of supporters at his beck and call.

I think syb means the RNC should have put something in place from the early stages, back in 2015.

Republicans have been in lockstep with dark money for several years now. It's how Trump was able to hide his financials in plain sight.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:13 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:12 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

You are absolutely right.

But, Trump was running a scorched earth primary campaign, lobbing personal insults at all Republicans standing in his way. Would he have listened to them if they made such a demand? Because by the time the GOP took him seriously, he already had an army of supporters at his beck and call.

I think syb means the RNC should have put something in place from the early stages, back in 2015.

Exactly. They wanted a way to stop him early, and he was never going to show his taxes. They could have made that a requirement very early on.

As a tangent, it drives me nuts when people say the DNC rigged the primary in favor of Hillary. The parties can do whatever the fuck they want when nominating a candidate. It's a private club choosing a representative, they don't have to provide a fair election process, and they don't have to nominate the candidate the people choose. I voted for Bernie, but he was an Independant and only became a Dem to get the nomination, so of course the DNC was biased against him. I love Joe Rogan's podcast, but he goes off the DNC for being hypocrites for accusing Trump of colluding to meddle in the election, when the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:28 pm As a tangent, it drives me nuts when people say the DNC rigged the primary in favor of Hillary. The parties can do whatever the fuck they want when nominating a candidate. It's a private club choosing a representative, they don't have to provide a fair election process, and they don't have to nominate the candidate the people choose.

Absolutely agree, in that they broke no rules other than possibly their own, which of course they're within their rights to do.

It is fair to point out, however, that had they played it level, Bernie very possibly would have won, and had he won the primary, he would almost certainly have won the election.

(Unless the election was unwinnable.)

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:48 pm (Unless the election was unwinnable.)

Yes, assuming a free and fair election. Which may not have been entirely the case.

RSmith wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:45 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:28 pm As a tangent, it drives me nuts when people say the DNC rigged the primary in favor of Hillary. The parties can do whatever the fuck they want when nominating a candidate. It's a private club choosing a representative, they don't have to provide a fair election process, and they don't have to nominate the candidate the people choose.

Absolutely agree, in that they broke no rules other than possibly their own, which of course they're within their rights to do.

It is fair to point out, however, that had they played it level, Bernie very possibly would have won, and had he won the primary, he would almost certainly have won the election.

That's not AT ALL a knowable fact. The guy has "socialist" next to his name. There are MILLIONS of Americans that would've just as easily been swayed (ironically) by the Russian meddling efforts that they were voting for a communist by voting for Bernie.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:28 pm

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:13 pm

Pruitt wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:12 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

You are absolutely right.

But, Trump was running a scorched earth primary campaign, lobbing personal insults at all Republicans standing in his way. Would he have listened to them if they made such a demand? Because by the time the GOP took him seriously, he already had an army of supporters at his beck and call.

I think syb means the RNC should have put something in place from the early stages, back in 2015.

Exactly. They wanted a way to stop him early, and he was never going to show his taxes. They could have made that a requirement very early on.

As a tangent, it drives me nuts when people say the DNC rigged the primary in favor of Hillary. The parties can do whatever the fuck they want when nominating a candidate. It's a private club choosing a representative, they don't have to provide a fair election process, and they don't have to nominate the candidate the people choose. I voted for Bernie, but he was an Independant and only became a Dem to get the nomination, so of course the DNC was biased against him. I love Joe Rogan's podcast, but he goes off the DNC for being hypocrites for accusing Trump of colluding to meddle in the election, when the DNC stole the nomination from Bernie.

I made this point repeatedly on this board in 2016. People don't understand how fucked up the primary process is.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:52 pm

RSmith wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:45 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:28 pm As a tangent, it drives me nuts when people say the DNC rigged the primary in favor of Hillary. The parties can do whatever the fuck they want when nominating a candidate. It's a private club choosing a representative, they don't have to provide a fair election process, and they don't have to nominate the candidate the people choose.

Absolutely agree, in that they broke no rules other than possibly their own, which of course they're within their rights to do.

It is fair to point out, however, that had they played it level, Bernie very possibly would have won, and had he won the primary, he would almost certainly have won the election.

That's not AT ALL a knowable fact. The guy has "socialist" next to his name. There are MILLIONS of Americans that would've just as easily been swayed (ironically) by the Russian meddling efforts that they were voting for a communist by voting for Bernie.

Fair enough. But Bernie was pretty clearly better-aligned with the Democratic party base (as opposed to the leadership), and since the Democratic base is, by all statistics I've read, slightly larger than the Republican base...

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:28 pm As a tangent, it drives me nuts when people say the DNC rigged the primary in favor of Hillary. The parties can do whatever the fuck they want when nominating a candidate. It's a private club choosing a representative, they don't have to provide a fair election process, and they don't have to nominate the candidate the people choose. I voted for Bernie, but he was an Independant and only became a Dem to get the nomination, so of course the DNC was biased against him.

It seems to me the whole point of these organizations is to get one of their own elected not to chose which one that is. To do so is by definition anti-democratic. We can all agree that it is almost logistically impossible for an Independent to win the Presidency so as such any viable candidate needs to operate with the blessing of either DNC/RNC. These committees control massive funding, access to endorsements, and access to debates. To skew all that power towards one candidate because the power brokers favor them is troubling and anti-democratic. You are correct in that once they reach the Convention, there are rules in place to potentially nominate someone other than the most voted for candidate. We can have a separate debate over the validity of that process. If we as Americans are comfortable with the DNC/RNC manipulating the primary process to give us their choice at the conventions, then we don't have free and fair elections to start with.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

He would have likely declined in that case, run as an independent, and who knows what would have happened. The easy expectation is that he and the conventional replacement Republican candidate would have split the vote and Clinton would have won, but we are operating under the knowledge that outside forces that wanted Trump to win were acting in election results.

Nobody would have voted for Trump if he ran as an independent. People voted for the (R). And having the (R) gave him the stage. money and infrastructure to give all those speeches and be in all those debates and get all that tv time.

Doesn't that logic imply any R would have won?

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:37 pm Doesn't that logic imply any R would have won?

No. Because once he got the R, he ran with it, campaigned like a mad man and got the base worked up.

Without the R, he's got nothing to start with and someone else with the R may not have gotten people as excited.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:34 pm Nobody would have voted for Trump if he ran as an independent. People voted for the (R). And having the (R) gave him the stage. money and infrastructure to give all those speeches and be in all those debates and get all that tv time.

Plenty of people would have voted for him as an I rather an R, depending on the R in the race of course. If the GOP had nominated a more centrist candidate there would have been plenty of votes syphoned off by Trump's rhetoric.

He would have still gotten TV time because he's a known name. As much? Probably not. But he would have been a factor in the race. Remember Perot got nearly 20% of the popular vote when people knew shit about him before he ran in 1992.

If it was Bush v. Clinton II, plenty of people would have gone Trump.

I don't think that campaign even gets off the ground. That day when he came down the escalator and threw his hat into the republican race everyone laughed. It was only though the GOP debates and primary process (and CNN giving him constant air time) that he gained ground.

So as an independent candidate, he would have had to enter late, raise money somehow and would he even have gotten a seat at the presidential debate?

And knowing his ego, he wouldn't be in it just to get 20% of the vote. The GOP certainly could have sent him packing. But instead they ran with it, and he won!

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

If Putin releases a tape of the US President pissing on hookers in a Moscow hotel room, he's fuckin' done.

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 3:57 pm I don't think that campaign even gets off the ground. That day when he came down the escalator and threw his hat into the republican race everyone laughed. It was only though the GOP debates and primary process (and CNN giving him constant air time) that he gained ground.

So as an independent candidate, he would have had to enter late, raise money somehow and would he even have gotten a seat at the presidential debate?

And knowing his ego, he wouldn't be in it just to get 20% of the vote. The GOP certainly could have sent him packing. But instead they ran with it, and he won!

The only reason I agree with this is because he would have had to finance it himself, and he doesn't pay for anything. (or have nearly as much money as he says)

I’m pretty fucking tired of the idiotic argument that Bernie was “cheated” of the Democratic nomination considering that Hillary got 3 million more votes in primaries and still won more pledged delegates via primary votes. There was some machinations behind the scenes by the DNC but it was mostly to get superdelegates which she never would needed anyway.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 6:43 pm I’m pretty fucking tired of the idiotic argument that Bernie was “cheated” of the Democratic nomination considering that Hillary got 3 million more votes in primaries and still won more pledged delegates via primary votes. There was some machinations behind the scenes by the DNC but it was mostly to get superdelegates which she never would needed anyway.

Your numbers are irrefutable. The problem comes with the bolded part of your quote. While each Superdelegate has only one counted vote, they are Senators, House members, Governors all of whom have entrenched political machines who have volunteers, donor lists, connections, etc. Do these people get to support whomever they want with all their resources? Absolutely. As long as it's organic. If the DNC and its members (many of whom were also Superdelegates) got the word out that "for the good of the Party" they should support Hilary then that's putting a finger on the scale. That's exactly what some of the e-mails seem to show and were backed up by Donna Braille's (later retracted) statement. To challenge the number of counted delegates is idiotic. To question the process of how those numbers were achieved when evidence is presented to do such questioning is not.

I’m dubious that 90 percent of her eventual superdelegates (and frankly that might be a low estimate) weren’t going to support her anyway. Sanders isn’t a Democrat and the Clintons have been part of the machine for three decades. I don’t think there were many Democratic senators or governors that had to have their arms twisted.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 4:05 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 1:09 pm

tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 12:52 pm I mean, it's David Frum. And, fuck Frum, but he's not wrong here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... in/565310/

This is why it was so utterly crucial to our democracy to make the President open his finances to public scrutiny, release his taxes, and divest of all business interests. During the primaries, when the GOP actively tried to stop Trump, they should have forced him to release his tax returns in order to get the nomination or a seat at the debates. I still think the key to Trump's servitude to Putin is financial or related to money laundering, not personal. If the Access Hollywood tape, Stormy Daniels, and a dozen or more sexual harassment suits didn't cost Trump a single supporter, I doubt a pee tape would do any harm. If it happened, I don't think anyone, including Melania, would be remotely surprised, and it's perfectly in character for the man, so why would he care?

If Putin releases a tape of the US President pissing on hookers in a Moscow hotel room, he's fuckin' done.

I always assumed the hookers pissed on him, not the other way around.

Glad Coats finds this funny... We are so fucked.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 8:53 pm I’m dubious that 90 percent of her eventual superdelegates (and frankly that might be a low estimate) weren’t going to support her anyway. Sanders isn’t a Democrat and the Clintons have been part of the machine for three decades. I don’t think there were many Democratic senators or governors that had to have their arms twisted.

While the endorsements of superdelegates are part of the process that the DNC has for naming a candidate their early declarations (as soon as Bernie had gotten a win or three under his wings) was certainly part of the finger on the scale that RamsFanny mentioned. Typically the majority of superdelegates gave their endorsements much later in the primary process. The early declarations gave Hillary a huge lead when in actually voted delegates she had a very narrow lead. Not to say she wouldn't have won anyway, but there may have been more votes that could have cut into that 3 million vote lead you like to cite.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:03 pmI always assumed the hookers pissed on him, not the other way around.

In the tape, which is real, the hookers pee on each other while Trump is present. He does not participate. It will be equated to a strip club in the exact same way his comments were just locker room talk. It will be dismissed. Nothing will matter.

With some of the stuff leaking out about Sanders campaign team it’s looking like if Sanders had won the nomination it would have been two Russian agents running against each other.

brian wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 5:06 am With some of the stuff leaking out about Sanders campaign team it’s looking like if Sanders had won the nomination it would have been two Russian agents running against each other.

As a Clinton supporter, you might want to read up a bit on Tony Podesta and rethink this take.

mister d wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 10:11 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Thu Jul 19, 2018 9:03 pmI always assumed the hookers pissed on him, not the other way around.

In the tape, which is real, the hookers pee on each other while Trump is present. He does not participate. It will be equated to a strip club in the exact same way his comments were just locker room talk. It will be dismissed. Nothing will matter.

And all they'd have to do is put a "LegalPorno" logo in the bottom right corner and super impose a white couch and it's completely fine.

I'm over rehashing Bernie v Hillary. Despite my leanings, I knew she'd get nominated.

But...

There were only 5 people to even try for the nomination. 2 dropped out just before Iowa (Chaffee & Webb) and a third (O'Malley) afterward.

Plus a slew of superdelegates pledged for Hillary shortly after she announced her intention. I remember Howard linked an article about that and I can't find it. However, she had a 45-to-1 superdelegate lead by that November. The Iowa Caucus wasn't until February. At the very least, so as not to appear so overwhelmingly in the tank for Hillary, they could've waited until, oh I don't know, AFTER the primaries to declare. But no.

The DNC wanted Hillary and only severe blowouts by Bernie in primaries would have changed course. Remember how quick Wasserman-Schultz and her Ramen noodle hair went from resigning in scorn as DNC chair to working for the Clinton campaign? It was the same day.

Plus, he was a little known Democratic SOCIALIST with some very left views (that Democrats had to adopt to stay afloat). She was the 30 year establishment and it was "her time." Whatever.

Even though I know she'd have been a demonstrably better president, there was still a part of me that found it hilarious she lost to Donald J Fucking Agent Orange Trump. The schadenfreude at her and the DNC's hubris and expectation of being handed the presidency just because was awesome until you realized that meant a Russian puppet had to become president.

I basically turned into this:

Just random thoughts:

1. Whoever said Bernie Sanders was not gonna win because he has socialist next to his name is probably right. People can say whatever they want now but if push came to shove, I don't see all of these people actually voting for Sanders.

2. Most people would rather elect the blackest man than a woman to the Presidency. The Clinton campaign may have screwed some things up but she started behind the 8-ball and she was gonna get savaged at every opportunity. And that's not even considering residual hate for the name Clinton.

3. Trump would survive the pee tape if hookers only pissed on each other in a vacuum, but he isn't in a vacuum anymore. One. it would be the clearest lie he's told yet and visible to everyone. Only the staunchest dipshits would be defending him on this, IMO. Of course, that's probably a solid 20% of the country, which is the real problem, but still. Two, it would lend serious credence to the view that he's being controlled by Russia under threat of blackmail. That's like red flag impeachable and he's already on a ledge. I think a piss tape would get him pushed off that ledge.

4. Even if the pee tape isn't real, I guarantee that Trump did something with hookers (even if he just watched them hook) and even if there isn't a tape, he THINKS that there is. And that's really the same thing.

5. Peeps in Congress need to push Trump to investigate the election (like he claimed he would) and hammer the GOP for endlessly investigating the Benghazi and email shit. Like just hammer them relentlessly on this stuff. Somebody needs to just incessantly force the issue of holding Trump to his word.

Disagree on 3. The Rs have been all-in from the start out of self-preservation, to reverse course would be suicide.

kinda incredible how Trump's shit this week turned this discussion into Bernie v. Hillary v100

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:44 am 3. Trump would survive the pee tape if hookers only pissed on each other in a vacuum, but he isn't in a vacuum anymore. One. it would be the clearest lie he's told yet and visible to everyone. Only the staunchest dipshits would be defending him on this, IMO. Of course, that's probably a solid 20% of the country, which is the real problem, but still. Two, it would lend serious credence to the view that he's being controlled by Russia under threat of blackmail. That's like red flag impeachable and he's already on a ledge. I think a piss tape would get him pushed off that ledge.

4. Even if the pee tape isn't real, I guarantee that Trump did something with hookers (even if he just watched them hook) and even if there isn't a tape, he THINKS that there is. And that's really the same thing.

Depends on how smart he is. Hardware horsepower and video/image editing algorithms have advanced to the point that it is now legitimately possible to synthesize what appears to be an actual full-motion video of pretty much anyone, doing pretty much anything. This has actually been personally demonstrated to me by people working in related areas (and that was a few years ago).

Now, if such a tape were released of Trump, I've no doubt it would be legitimate. But the fact that it could *feasibly* be fake, combined with the fact that as president, he is an obvious target, would give his supporters/trolls all that they need to continue deluding themselves. I think it could conceivably not so much as dent his approval rating, if he denied it in strongest terms.

This doesn't explain why the Russians have probably been on Drumpf since way before this election, but I still think the real #1 thing he doesn't want revealed now is that he wouldn't have beaten a woman without their help. He'd take 100 pee tapes before that.

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:00 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:44 am 3. Trump would survive the pee tape if hookers only pissed on each other in a vacuum, but he isn't in a vacuum anymore. One. it would be the clearest lie he's told yet and visible to everyone. Only the staunchest dipshits would be defending him on this, IMO. Of course, that's probably a solid 20% of the country, which is the real problem, but still. Two, it would lend serious credence to the view that he's being controlled by Russia under threat of blackmail. That's like red flag impeachable and he's already on a ledge. I think a piss tape would get him pushed off that ledge.

4. Even if the pee tape isn't real, I guarantee that Trump did something with hookers (even if he just watched them hook) and even if there isn't a tape, he THINKS that there is. And that's really the same thing.

Depends on how smart he is. Hardware horsepower and video/image editing algorithms have advanced to the point that it is now legitimately possible to synthesize what appears to be an actual full-motion video of pretty much anyone, doing pretty much anything. This has actually been personally demonstrated to me by people working in related areas (and that was a few years ago).

Now, if such a tape were released of Trump, I've no doubt it would be legitimate. But the fact that it could *feasibly* be fake, combined with the fact that as president, he is an obvious target, would give his supporters/trolls all that they need to continue deluding themselves. I think it could conceivably not so much as dent his approval rating, if he denied it in strongest terms.

Why haven't fake real videos been made with relative regularity to attack people?

Pretty sure he's already proven he can beat women without their help.

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:18 am

RSmith wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:00 am

Gunpowder wrote: ↑Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:44 am 3. Trump would survive the pee tape if hookers only pissed on each other in a vacuum, but he isn't in a vacuum anymore. One. it would be the clearest lie he's told yet and visible to everyone. Only the staunchest dipshits would be defending him on this, IMO. Of course, that's probably a solid 20% of the country, which is the real problem, but still. Two, it would lend serious credence to the view that he's being controlled by Russia under threat of blackmail. That's like red flag impeachable and he's already on a ledge. I think a piss tape would get him pushed off that ledge.

4. Even if the pee tape isn't real, I guarantee that Trump did something with hookers (even if he just watched them hook) and even if there isn't a tape, he THINKS that there is. And that's really the same thing.

Depends on how smart he is. Hardware horsepower and video/image editing algorithms have advanced to the point that it is now legitimately possible to synthesize what appears to be an actual full-motion video of pretty much anyone, doing pretty much anything. This has actually been personally demonstrated to me by people working in related areas (and that was a few years ago).

Now, if such a tape were released of Trump, I've no doubt it would be legitimate. But the fact that it could *feasibly* be fake, combined with the fact that as president, he is an obvious target, would give his supporters/trolls all that they need to continue deluding themselves. I think it could conceivably not so much as dent his approval rating, if he denied it in strongest terms.

Why haven't fake real videos been made with relative regularity to attack people?

Maybe I'm understating a bit; the horsepower, and level of skill, required it still substantial. You need access to a pretty significant cluster to make it feasible, or at least that was the case at the time I was shown the presentation. But it's something a hostile state with a well-developed computational science program should not have a problem with.