Cont: The Trump Presidency VIII

[Garrison]

Hm. I'm doubtful.
Reason: I can't come up with an explanation for why they would exist all this time and not be released already.

Perhaps like with Cohen's tapes they are in the hands of a Trump ally he's now turned on?

 

[blutoski]

Perhaps like with Cohen's tapes they are in the hands of a Trump ally he's now turned on?

Yes, that's a plausible scenario. Recorded 'just in case' and released when things turn sour.

 

[Babbylonian]

Hm. I'm doubtful.
Reason: I can't come up with an explanation for why they would exist all this time and not be released already.

That's an easy one: Money. Given Trump's position as a producer, he probably has a contractual say in what gets released and what doesn't. Assuming that's the case, any release of damaging material without his consent could result in an expensive lawsuit that those releasing the material might have no chance of winning.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The "hoax" part was the claim that Trump tweeted that picture*. The fact is that a biker at the Patriots Prayer in Oregon a week earlier, sported a "Bikers for Trump" patch did, indeed, have a Nazi tattoo .

Edit: *and/or posed with the biker

Where did I say that Trump tweeted a picture?

 

[Bob001]

That's an easy one: Money. Given Trump's position as a producer, he probably has a contractual say in what gets released and what doesn't. Assuming that's the case, any release of damaging material without his consent could result in an expensive lawsuit that those releasing the material might have no chance of winning.

Tom Arnold has claimed variously that he either has heard or actually has such Trump tapes, and that they are protected by confidentiality agreements. The thing is that there are plenty of people in the U.S. and just in Hollywood who are wealthy enough to indemnify anybody who actually releases such tapes. But nobody has said "I'll put $10 million in escrow. Let's get'em."
http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-to-have-footage-of-1482252896-htmlstory.html
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/tom-arnold-reports-racist-recordings-donald-trump/

 

[Segnosaur]

That's an easy one: Money. Given Trump's position as a producer, he probably has a contractual say in what gets released and what doesn't. Assuming that's the case, any release of damaging material without his consent could result in an expensive lawsuit that those releasing the material might have no chance of winning.

The thing is that there are plenty of people in the U.S. and just in Hollywood who are wealthy enough to indemnify anybody who actually releases such tapes. But nobody has said "I'll put $10 million in escrow. Let's get'em."

Or even better...simply have it released anonymously, either on line or mailed to someone in the media. (Granted, Wikileaks wouldn't touch it, but I'm sure there are other, non-Trump/Russia friendly organizations that would love to be the first to publish the Trump N-word recording.) And since it is likely that there would be multiple people holding the recording, it would give the actual leaker some protection. (i.e. "how could you tell it was me?)

The fact that neither has happened (anonymous release or release with legal backing) suggests that such a tape does not exist, or if it does exist its held by people friendly to Trump.

 

[Stacyhs]

Where did I say that Trump tweeted a picture?

No, not you. Others:

On 11 August 2018, President Trump welcomed members of the “Bikers for Trump” group to the Trump National Golf Course in Bedminster, New Jersey. Shortly afterwards a supposed tweet from President Trump featuring an image of one of the “Bikers for Trump” bearing an apparent Nazi ‘SS’ tattoo started making its way around online

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bikers-for-trump-tattoos/

 

[The Big Dog]

Where did I say that Trump tweeted a picture?

You said he posed with him.

 

[Babbylonian]

Or even better...simply have it released anonymously, either on line or mailed to someone in the media. (Granted, Wikileaks wouldn't touch it, but I'm sure there are other, non-Trump/Russia friendly organizations that would love to be the first to publish the Trump N-word recording.) And since it is likely that there would be multiple people holding the recording, it would give the actual leaker some protection. (i.e. "how could you tell it was me?)
The fact that neither has happened (anonymous release or release with legal backing) suggests that such a tape does not exist, or if it does exist its held by people friendly to Trump.

The highlighted above is a huge assumption. Those who would have access to raw footage may grab copies of interesting unaired material for themselves, but it's the sort of thing that could get an editor fired if they were caught. Therefore, if these recordings exist, it is entirely possible that they actually are under the control of only one person. It's also possible that said person has made written assurances that s/he would be personally responsible if an unauthorized release was to take place. Said person may even have taken money in exchange for a promise to destroy said material...even if the destruction didn't actually take place.

At the end of the day, I agree with you: Given that we haven't seen a release of this material, the safest assumption is that there are only between 0 and 1 copies of the material in existence; IMO, the only way there can be more copies is if all copies are under the control of one person.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Let's say there is a tape of him saying the "N" word. Let's say that tape has him saying it multiple times in reference to specific people along with other racial slurs. Then what?

IMO this would be a point to celebrate for his supporters. At worst it would be hand-waved indifference. The Trump administration has been doing far worse to those pesky darkies than calling them a few names and his sycophants are cheering him on. What real damage would it do to him?

You can believe that since nothing in the past mattered, this won't either.

Or, you can believe that there is a last straw and this might very well be it.

That last straw would likely significantly affect the Nov election.

BTW, Suckabee today didn't deny Trump uses the N word. That's revealing. Of course given he called a bunch of predominantly black third world countries **** hole countries, I would be shocked if Trump didn't use the N word on a regular basis.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ahh, I see! You were deliberately using laughably fallacious arguments (and using completely made up "facts" to boot) to deliberately divert from the fact that someone had posted a clear hoax about Trump appearing with Nazi bikers.

Nothing to see here folks, just a fella using blatantly fallacious arguments and then (quite mysteriously) openly bragging about grossly fallacious and totally false arguments.

Everything is coming up The Big Dog!

Exactly what "made up 'facts'" did I use? Identify them.
In another thread, you posted a link to a video that did not show what you claimed it showed. I asked you for evidence of your claim which you failed to provide. In this thread, you sarcastically asked another poster if he had clarified that his link turned out to be a hoax. I then asked if you had done the same regarding your link.

As for the rest of your post; a classic example of the "I've got nothing left" tactic of "the best defense is a good offense". It's one of Trump's favorites.

I see you fail to identity the "made up facts" you accused me of using. Why is that?

Because it was expertly covered already in the other thread, obviously.

False. You accused me of using made up facts. Identify these alleged "made up facts".If you do not produce them, it is evidence that you made that up.

well there was the hilarious ones where you accused NBC and NPR of feeding right winger's bias and being misinformation

LOL! Now I see the source of your confusion. I was not referring to NPR or NBC at all nor did I ever mention them. I was referring to the video you posted from Wired News that turned out to be completely misleading.

You were the one who made the false connection to NPR and NBC:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12394216#post12394216


You have also still failed to produce the "made up facts" you claim I made.

Would you care to clarify now that your accusation that I used "made up facts" and that I "accused NBC and NPR of feeding right winger's bias and being misinformation" was untrue?

Apparently not.

 

[The Big Dog]

Apparently not.

I get a case of the giggles! Not even trying to pretend it wasn't a completely silly and fallacious argument.

You want to discuss Antifa? No problems

 

[Cain]

Barack Obama said the ****** word on degenerate Marc Maron's podcast and Democrats didn't have a problem with it. And he was a sitting president! So why should they have a problem if Mr. Trump used it as a private citizen in private conversations?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Hm. I'm doubtful.
Reason: I can't come up with an explanation for why they would exist all this time and not be released already.

Well Mark Burnett, who would have final say on what happened to any such tape, got $26m from the Trump inauguration committee, funnelled through a company created by a friend of Melanie's 6 weeks before the transaction. That's not necessarily got anything to do with it, but $26m is a fairly good reason to sit on something like that.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Well Mark Burnett, who would have final say on what happened to any such tape, got $26m from the Trump inauguration committee, funnelled through a company created by a friend of Melanie's 6 weeks before the transaction. That's not necessarily got anything to do with it, but $26m is a fairly good reason to sit on something like that.

You've said this twice, is there a link to a cite upthread?
I'm among the few it seems to have asked, repeatedly, what happened to the unspent 50-60 million bucks from the inauguration. Some have said it's basically free money after the event, completely at the POTUS' discretion. Which is a bad thing to dangle in front of this president.

 

[Segnosaur]

Well Mark Burnett, who would have final say on what happened to any such tape, got $26m from the Trump inauguration committee, funnelled through a company created by a friend of Melanie's 6 weeks before the transaction. That's not necessarily got anything to do with it, but $26m is a fairly good reason to sit on something like that.

You've said this twice, is there a link to a cite upthread?

I'm not sure if the $26 million is the correct figure here. (That may have been the total given to the company, of which Burnett got a portion.)

From: https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/t...rd-inauguration-spending-go-its-inexplicable/
The committee’s tax filing showed that $26 million of the spending went to an event planning firm started in December by a friend of the First Lady....According to Trump’s filing, slightly more than half of the money went to four event-planning companies, including the firm owned by the First Lady’s friend, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff. Her company, WIS Media Partners, paid the co-creator of “The Apprentice,” Mark Burnett, to help with the festivities, as the New York Times reported.

 

[Darat]

Hilarious. One needs a database -- constantly updated -- in order to keep track of the many legal actions.

It's simply what Trump, has always done.

 

[Paul2]

Barack Obama said the ****** word on degenerate Marc Maron's podcast and Democrats didn't have a problem with it. And he was a sitting president! So why should they have a problem if Mr. Trump used it as a private citizen in private conversations?

For the record, here is what Obama said:

What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, that casts a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. Racism, we are not cured of. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘◊◊◊◊◊◊’ in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination.​

link

Note that Obama didn't merely use the word - as in referring to someone by the word - he was talking about the word as a word, and making a larger point of some import.

It will be interesting to compare how the current president might have used that word, if at all, with how Obama did.

 

[GlennB]

For the record, here is what Obama said:

What is also true is that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination in almost every institution of our lives, that casts a long shadow and that’s still part of our DNA that’s passed on. Racism, we are not cured of. And it’s not just a matter of it not being polite to say ‘◊◊◊◊◊◊’ in public. That’s not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination.​

link

Note that Obama didn't merely use the word - as in referring to someone by the word - he was talking about the word as a word, and making a larger point of some import.

It will be interesting to compare how the current president might have used that word, if at all, with how Obama did.

Which, for my money, is the crucial point. If we're going to discuss (say) swear words, then mentioning those words during the discussion is not off-limits. Whereas if I call someone the c-word in anger it's a totally different matter.

 

[jimbob]

Paul2, thanks for the context, which I wasn't aware of.

Cain is good at Poes that do accurately skewer some of the more extreme Republicans.