What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Official Donald Trump for President thread (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cjw_55106 said:
I think Trump can win if he changes his tune and acts like a decent human being for three months. Im not sure he is capable, but the chance exists IMO.
Click to expand...
He's like that crazy chick you slept with a couple times, but dumped because of the broken furniture and dead pets. No matter how long she plays it straight and normal, you're not bringing her home again.

 
cosjobs said:
He's like that crazy chick you slept with a couple times, but dumped because of the broken furniture and dead pets. No matter how long she plays it straight and normal, you're not bringing her home again.
Click to expand...
until you get really drunk and lonely that is

 
cosjobs said:
He's like that crazy chick you slept with a couple times, but dumped because of the broken furniture and dead pets. No matter how long she plays it straight and normal, you're not bringing her home again.
Click to expand...
So true. Had one who randomly just showed up at my work and would not leave.  

 
cosjobs said:
Are you saying that an article covering a third party's poll results makes your upper arm hurt?
Click to expand...
I absolutely botched that post in every way possible between the  screwed up link and then crappy word usage, I need to stop posting while sitting at stop lights and using text to talk   :wall:

 
People, she's killed more people than cancer, in a myriad of different ways, co-founded ISIS, fixed the Democratic primary, started a European refugee crisis, and deleted a lot of emails.

I'm afraid to NOT vote for this bada**.

 
massraider said:
People, she's killed more people than cancer, in a myriad of different ways, co-founded ISIS, fixed the Democratic primary, started a European refugee crisis, and deleted a lot of emails.

I'm afraid to NOT vote for this bada**.
Click to expand...
Plus what does it say about Trump that he's currently losing by 8 points to a crooked old lady with brain damage?

 
perry147 said:
Google is my best friend.

Presidents denied parties nomination


When Has A President Been Denied His Party's Nomination?






July 22, 200911:04 AM ET






KEN RUDIN






This question is from Michael Stubbs of Cincinnati, Ohio:



When was the last time, if ever, that a sitting president was not nominated by his party for a second term?
Click to expand...
It only happened once to an elected president. That was Franklin Pierce, the 14th president, who was elected as a Democrat in 1852. His pro-Southern sentiments and his policy of failing to lead on the divisive issue of slavery badly hurt his standing with the voters. Especially damaging was his support for the pro-slavery Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which backfired on him as Kansas was overrun by pro-slavery forces, mostly from the slave state of Missouri. The events angered Northerners everywhere and helped lead to the creation of the Republican Party. When Democratic delegates gathered in Cincinnati for their convention in 1856, it was clear that they had had enough of Pierce. James Buchanan, who had been defeated by Pierce for the nomination four years earlier, won the nomination on the 17th ballot.

Four other presidents were denied the nomination of their party, but none of these were elected in their own right. They were:

John Tyler, Whig, 1844. Tyler became president in 1841 following the death of William Henry Harrison. Tyler, a conservative Southerner, was out of step with many in the Whig Party, which instead nominated Henry Clay for president.

Millard Fillmore, Whig, 1852. Fillmore also ascended to the presidency following the death of the incumbent. In this case it was Zachary Taylor, who died in 1850. Taylor's death left the Whigs in disarray, and the party convention chose Gen.Winfield Scott over Fillmore and Daniel Webster.

Andrew Johnson, Democrat, 1868. Johnson, a Southerner and a Democrat, was chosen to be part of a Republican unity ticket led by President Abraham Lincoln in 1864. Following Lincoln's assassination the following year, Johnson tried in vain to win the support of the late president's allies; in fact, he was impeached and nearly convicted by a GOP Congress. The Democratic nomination went to Horatio Seymour.

Chester Arthur, Republican, 1884. Arthur was picked for VP by James Garfield in 1880 in order to help the GOP carry New York. Following Garfield's assassination in 1881, Arthur alienated his erstwhile allies by attacking the patronage system that had helped his career until that point. Arthur lost the GOP nomination to James Blaine.



Thanks, so it has happened. The Andrew Johnson one shouldn't count though, as he ran on a Republican ticket and was denied the Democratic nomination. The rest were sitting but not elected Presidents, so only Pierce really counts. It does show how unlikely it is that Hillary, short of a mental breakdown, could lose the nomination in 2020.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Obama is center-left, I'd put Hillary in the same general area -- agree that she is right of Obama. The Republicans are having trouble because a huge chunk of their base has followed Hannity and Breitbart right off of the far right deep end.
Click to expand...
I actually don't think she nor Trump have any ideological core.  They will say and do whatever without any real consistent ideology...

 
Rove! said:
I actually don't think she nor Trump have any ideological core.  They will say and do whatever without any real consistent ideology...
Click to expand...
People have been repeating this about Clinton for quite some time.  It may be true on some issues, but she clearly has a moral compass when it comes issues that affect the welfare of children (education, health care, family-friendly workplaces, etc.) as well as "women's issues" like equal pay and reproductive rights.  She's not only been consistent on those issues for decades, she's been pretty passionate about them too. In fact on those issues were she has flip-flopped like gay marriage she's usually explained the reason for her flip-flop.  Whether you buy her explanation is up to you.

And I'd say the same thing about Trump, whose affection for law and order predates his political ambitions.  As does his treatment of women as objects.

 
bueno said:
Thanks, so it has happened. The Andrew Johnson one shouldn't count though, as he ran on a Republican ticket and was denied the Democratic nomination. The rest were sitting but not elected Presidents, so only Pierce really counts. It does show how unlikely it is that Hillary, short of a mental breakdown, could lose the nomination in 2020.
Click to expand...
I don't think Andrew Johnson ran on a Republican ticket. It was some kind of unified ticket in 1864 IIRC.

 
Rove! said:
Refugee crisis is really putting a strain on Europe.  I believe it's one of the factors that let to BREXIT....
Click to expand...
Right, so the Arabian spring is due to Hillary Clinton, as are the horrible regimes they still have in the region, the lack of economic progress ad jobs, not to mention the wars in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan,...

(You'll notice I did not mention Syria, Iran and Iraq since you have already covered them with your Middle East comment)

You may also have noticed that I do not agree. Being European I think that counts for something.

 
timschochet said:
I don't think Andrew Johnson ran on a Republican ticket. It was some kind of unified ticket in 1864 IIRC.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the incumbent president in 1864 was called Abraham Lincoln, could be wrong, though, but it does ring a bell

(Obvioysly if you are from the South you may disagree).

 
Introducing The Trump News Channel—Coming in 2017?

...

If today’s polls hold through election day, Trump and associates will be proved failures at electoral politics. But even if that proves so, I wouldn’t bet against a right-wing media behemoth that brought together Trump, Roger Ailes, Stephen Bannon, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, and Sarah Palin, especially if they had some help:

Fox News Channel’s No. 1 primetime lineup could be in jeopardy if network boss Roger Ailes gets booted. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren all might exit the network if parent company 21st Century Fox gets rid of Ailes in the wake of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by former host Gretchen Carlson, according to a person familiar with the situation.

The three hosts have all spoken out publicly in defense of Ailes, who has been under internal investigation since shortly after the Carlson suit was filed. O’Reilly, Hannity and Van Susteren have contract clauses that would allow them to depart if Ailes leaves the network,according to a Financial Times report, which cites two people briefed on the situation.

I am not alone in wondering if a media company of this sort is in the offing.

“The breakout media star of 2016 is, inarguably, Donald Trump, who has masterfully—and horrifyingly—demonstrated an aptitude for manipulating the news cycle, gaining billions of dollars worth of free airtime, and dominating coverage,” Vanity Fair reported in June. “Now, several people around him are looking for a way to leverage his supporters into a new media platform and cable channel.”

The story continued:

Trump is indeed considering creating his own media business, built on the audience that has supported him thus far in his bid to become the next president of the United States. According to several people briefed on the discussions, the presumptive Republican nominee is examining the opportunity presented by the “audience” currently supporting him. He has also discussed the possibility of launching a “mini-media conglomerate” outside of his existing TV-production business, Trump Productions LLC. He has, according to one of these people, enlisted the consultation of his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who owns the The New York Observer. Trump’s rationale, according to this person, is that, “win or lose, we are onto something here. We’ve triggered a base of the population that hasn’t had a voice in a long time.”

“It now seems very plausible,” John Ziegler writes, “that the remainder of the campaign might be used as little more than a marketing campaign for a future competitor to Fox News Channel.” The “let Trump be Trump” approach would certainly facilitate that end, whether or not it was the candidate’s conscious intention.

For that reason, GOP officials and movement conservatives ought to be preparing for worst case scenarios. And a Donald Trump Network is perhaps the worst case possible.

A Trump campaign expecting to lose and then launch an effort of that sort would have every incentive to hoard campaign donations to pay back debt incurred by Trump himself; to be maximally inflammatory, polarizing the electorate while further cultivating a core of true believers; to aggressively blame Fox News,National Review, Glenn Beck, and all other potential competitors in order to alienate them from their audiences; even to sabotage the GOP down ballot, depending on just how cynical the folks running things are. After all, what could be better for business, if you’re a new media conglomerate to the right of Fox News, than a Hillary Clinton presidency supercharged by a Democratic House and Senate?

...
Click to expand...

 
Coeur de Lion said:
What an absolute freaking nightmare for the Republican Party if this is what happens -- and I think that there's actually a pretty good chance that this has been the primary goal all along.
Click to expand...
This would be the greatest thing that ever happened to the democratic party.

 
 
Bush was rightly taken to task for his Katrina flyover which Bill Clinton was praised for doing what Trump did

Is it always home & away uniforms we root for? Both can do good and bad . We can praise and criticize equally 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
perry147 said:
This would be the greatest thing that ever happened to the democratic party.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it would be really bad for the country if the Republican base gets pulled out even further into the lunatic fringe. Productive dialogue can occur when the parties are center-left and center-right. When they are center-left and far right extremist, not so much. A move even further away from the mainstream wouldn't be good or healthy for anyone.

 
timschochet said:
I don't think Andrew Johnson ran on a Republican ticket. It was some kind of unified ticket in 1864 IIRC.
Click to expand...
National Union Party was what Lincoln-Johnson ran under. Johnson then ran as a Democrat but didn't get the nomination. But the National Union Party was the main faction of the Republican Party in coalition with some war Democrats. - So essentially, Johnson ran under a Republican ticket.

 
TobiasFunke said:
People have been repeating this about Clinton for quite some time.  It may be true on some issues, but she clearly has a moral compass when it comes issues that affect the welfare of children (education, health care, family-friendly workplaces, etc.) as well as "women's issues" like equal pay and reproductive rights.  She's not only been consistent on those issues for decades, she's been pretty passionate about them too. In fact on those issues were she has flip-flopped like gay marriage she's usually explained the reason for her flip-flop.  Whether you buy her explanation is up to you.

And I'd say the same thing about Trump, whose affection for law and order predates his political ambitions.  As does his treatment of women as objects.
Click to expand...
You will find almost every candidate inconsistent on many issues. But, Hillary has no moral compass at all. When you look at the donations the Clinton foundation has received from governments that, well, lets just say they have a rather shady record on the treatment of women and children. And of course there is somewhat of a mixed message for sexual abuse victims rights. And we are worried about what bathroom people should use over here.

 
Phil Elliott said:
You will find almost every candidate inconsistent on many issues. But, Hillary has no moral compass at all. When you look at the donations the Clinton foundation has received from governments that, well, lets just say they have a rather shady record on the treatment of women and children. And of course there is somewhat of a mixed message for sexual abuse victims rights. And we are worried about what bathroom people should use over here.
Click to expand...
The notion that accepting charitable donations amounts to the people who run the charity condoning all of the behavior of the donors on every issue is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.  Not only does it make zero sense, but if we as a society adopt this standard for evaluating charities and apply it on a large scale it would significantly reduce charitable giving, which is obviously a terrible thing for everyone. Imagine charities turning away donations from companies with low wages, or that pollute the environment, or that have been sued for discrimination, or that do anything else that many of us consider morally reprehensible. Charitable donations would drop like a stone. For example, the state of Louisiana would have had to turn away the charitable efforts of the orange-colored xenophobic misogynistic bigot who showed up in their state today.

Thankfully there's no real risk of this happening, because the only people who would make such a stupid argument are the Clinton haters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
come on man i have thousands of posts here so it is not the dumbest thing you have ever heard that is all i am sayin take that to the bank


 

 
bueno said:
National Union Party was what Lincoln-Johnson ran under. Johnson then ran as a Democrat but didn't get the nomination. But the National Union Party was the main faction of the Republican Party in coalition with some war Democrats. - So essentially, Johnson ran under a Republican ticket.
Click to expand...
I would love for you to expand on this very interesting topic.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok my subtlety meter might be off, I totally missed shtick earlier today which I tend to do. I'm glad he's coming, I think it will give us a charge, it's been a rough time.
Click to expand...
It's good that he visits . It's funny this morning all the D fanboy talking heads were saying he wasn't needed there etc

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ChiefD
⚽️⚽️⚽️OFFICIAL - MLS PLAYOFF THREAD - ⚽️⚽️⚽️
2
Replies
79
Views
2K
NewlyRetired
NewlyRetired
gianmarco
***Official Links to Funny Posts***
Replies
1
Views
130
gianmarco
gianmarco
Anarchy99
Top 250 Best Selling Rock Albums (1967 - 1981)
12 13 14
Replies
675
Views
16K
zamboni
zamboni

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top