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.
TobiasFunke said:
This isn't true.  Plenty of people have tried to discuss the issues.  We've demanded explanation as to why someone might be inclined to support Trump over and over and over again. The problem is that Trump himself makes it impossible to discuss the issues.  He dramatically shifts his position over and over again on virtually every issue, has no real concrete proposals or ideas to discuss, and turns into a blubbering, virtually incoherent mess any time anyone asks him for details about anything.

I'm happy to talk about any issues you'd like, as soon as you can explain to us where he stands on it.
Click to expand...
Trump Exposes Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSE-XoVKaXg

Trump Guarantees Putin Won't Go Into Ukraine. (He Already Has.) Starts 1:14 mark, after getting caught starts furiously (albeit clumsily) dissembling.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSU0wOTHspw

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Statorama said:
How Trump managed to gain the nomination is a thread in itself.  Too many candidates ankle-biting each other split all the anti-Trump votes.  You can make a case that John Kasich handed this nomination to Trump on a silver platter.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not so much. As Em has loudly tooted in this thread more people voted for Trump than voted for Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008, so that theory does not hold water

 
Gucci Fur said:
I honestly expected more rational discussion based on facts from a college educated crowd like the FFA. All you find in this thread is fear mongering and bigotry based on lies you are spoon-fed by CNN and Vox.
Click to expand...
I love that this call for rational discussion and rejection of fear mongering, bigotry and lies was posted less than ten minutes after this by the same poster:

TobiasFunke said:
I love that this call for rational discussion and rejection of fear mongering, bigotry and lies was posted less than ten minutes after this by the same poster:
Click to expand...
:lol:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
This should be worth watching: :popcorn:

Rachel Maddow MSNBC ‏@maddow 6m6 minutes ago

My first-ever interview tonight with @KellyannePolls , campaign manager for @realDonaldTrump -- 9pm ET, MSNBC.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong (you tell me if you watch the interview) I think she has a pretty good rep. I wouldn't expect a Katrina Pierson performance. Maybe in terms of dumbness I wouldn't be surprised if she toes the Trump line on the polls not revealing the real 'truth' of the electoral situation. But at the same time it's hard to impossible to do that completely and maintain her supposedly good rep. Good luck to her.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
The false equivalencies drawn between Trump and Hillary by folks on the right that certainly know better is possibly the single most annoying thing about this entire election cycle. It's like saying strep throat is as bad as terminal cancer just because being sick sucks.
Click to expand...
Hillary supporters are also forgiving a lot. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Sorry, both are horrible candidates. Voting for either is immoral IMO.

 
jomar said:
Bernie is certainly an outsider to the 2 political parties we have.  regardless, if someone thought Bernie wasn't an outsider, that still doesn't excuse throwing your vote Trump's way for the sole reason that he is an outsider. 

I know a few trump supporters and the reason they love him is because they are racists/bigots.  they loved the idea of getting rid of Mexicans and banning Muslims.  that's it.  He didn't need to be an outsider to get their vote.
Click to expand...
No he isn't. He ran as a socialist but caucused with the Democrats.

 
Yeah, not so much. As Em has loudly tooted in this thread more people voted for Trump than voted for Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008, so that theory does not hold water
Click to expand...
When all is said and done and the Republicans do their postmortem for the 2016 election, I think they're going to conclude that Trump's base was mostly independents and Democrats who were allowed to vote in Republican primaries. (Note that Trump did much better in Open primaries than Closed primaries.) And it will cause Republicans to completely overhaul their primary system -- eliminating Open primaries, shortening the registration deadlines for Closed primaries, and adding Superdelegates.

Basically, Donald Trump noticed loopholes in the Republican system and he exploited them perfectly. People will be writing books about how he tricked Republicans into ruining their own party.

 
Flying Spaghetti Monster said:
I am taking what you said to heart and will watch these when I get home.  But answer me one question.  They already hate us so is us hating them making any difference?  I can have a conversation with someone who basically believe that the evolution is false and gays deserve discrimination.  Why should I listen to these people?  
Click to expand...
Well, I don't hate you, but I do believe in equal rights and in evolution.

 
cosjobs said:
Because through conversation, both sides understand one another better. They bond as fellow citizens, despite their differences. And because we are so certain we are correct, we must hope that eventually our conversation will lead them to reason. If you refuse to listen or dialogue with them (particularly when blended with shame, ridicule and scorn), you only succeed in forever making them your enemy. 
Click to expand...
Not only that, but they become convinced that you are actually the buffoon because you aren't trying to use logic and reason. BTW - I feel this way about many libtards on this board, which is why sometimes I come across as condescending.

 
renesauz said:
This is not remotely true. There are many of us voting Hillary who would have greater preferred any of several other people, and might even have considered a moderate Republican who wasn't a narcissistic buthole
Click to expand...
It is true for many though - just consider Tim.

 
bueno said:
Not only that, but they become convinced that you are actually the buffoon because you aren't trying to use logic and reason. BTW - I feel this way about many libtards on this board, which is why sometimes I come across as condescending.
Click to expand...
:D

 
With all the talk about the Clinton Foundation (Which I agree should be turned over to a neutral party), I still have not heard a definitive word as to what Trump will do with all his holdings. Maybe he just doesn't think he will win so he is not putting out a plan.

Compared to the Clinton Foundation, this is a massive issue IMO

 
badmojo1006 said:
With all the talk about the Clinton Foundation (Which I agree should be turned over to a neutral party), I still have not heard a definitive word as to what Trump will do with all his holdings. Maybe he just doesn't think he will win so he is not putting out a plan.

Compared to the Clinton Foundation, this is a massive issue IMO
Click to expand...
Incredibly massive.  

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Well, many of us actually have tried to engage the Trumpkins in calm rational debate in here. It doesn't go well. When confronted on his open bigotry, they deny it. When confronted with any of the horrible things he does or says, they deflect. They obviously aren't real big on policy and discussion or issues, or they wouldn't be supporting Trump in the first place. SO where to go with them?
Click to expand...
So you stoop to their level and beat them with numbers? How will that heal the wounds of this land?

 
badmojo1006 said:
With all the talk about the Clinton Foundation (Which I agree should be turned over to a neutral party), I still have not heard a definitive word as to what Trump will do with all his holdings. Maybe he just doesn't think he will win so he is not putting out a plan.

Compared to the Clinton Foundation, this is a massive issue IMO
Click to expand...
I think Trump has merely said he will hand over control of his enterprises to his kids.

No divestment or blind trust.

Iirc his Foundation has not been discussed but would Hillary supporters really *not see a problem if the Trump Foundation started receiving millions from possible benefactees of WH decisions once he was in office? And if the Foundation then passed through income to his children for speaking fees? Think about it that way and the conflicts should be obvious. To me they were obvious when Hillary was Senator & Sos as well.

But no & hell no Trump is not divesting himself of anything in the WH.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
So you stoop to their level and beat them with numbers? How will that heal the wounds of this land?
Click to expand...
It won't. We pretty much have to wait for them to die off, and try to better educate their children. The good news is that each generation is more educated and moving ever further left, so it's just a matter of time.

 
cstu said:
I actually do believe shaming has helped people change their views. For example, the shaming of people who are anti-gay has shifted people towards being more accepting.  There will always be those who refuse to change but you don't need to convince everyone to make progress.

This is ultimately what the anti-PC movement is all about - people are tired of being shamed for their ignorant views.  To quote the movie "What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men. "
Click to expand...
I considered a moderate on the gay marriage issue. A belief in equal protection, but a desire to separate the emotional and spiritual issues from what is essentially a matter of contract law. There were attempts to shame and humiliate me even though I wasn't against gay marriage per se. It actually made me dig in harder. So I disagree that shaming helps people change their views toward accepting something.

 
Well a tolerant position that actually supports equal rights in practice, not just in theory, would be to mind your own business about who marries who and what their genders are, and support their rights under the law. But good on you for considering a human position until the libtards shamed you out of it, is that what you're saying?

 
bueno said:
I considered a moderate on the gay marriage issue. A belief in equal protection, but a desire to separate the emotional and spiritual issues from what is essentially a matter of contract law. There were attempts to shame and humiliate me even though I wasn't against gay marriage per se. It actually made me dig in harder. So I disagree that shaming helps people change their views toward accepting something.
Click to expand...
It's an interesting question. I'm not sure. 

But I suspect you represent an outlier. Public attitudes about gay marriage have changed pretty rapidly, and I think some of it is due to shaming. 

 
Coeur de Lion said:
It won't. We pretty much have to wait for them to die off, and try to better educate their children. The good news is that each generation is more educated and moving ever further left, so it's just a matter of time.
Click to expand...
So, you're going to go all Engels on our children now? 

 
People moderated on it because more people realized it didn't matter/wasn't their business, probably like many here. No one should have to shame anyone. Libtards or not.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Well a tolerant position that actually supports equal rights in practice, not just in theory, would be to mind your own business about who marries who and what their genders are, and support their rights under the law. But good on you for considering a human position until the libtards shamed you out of it, is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that the reasoning that many gays were presenting was "We should have our love recognized." I disagreed. They should not be asking the government to recognize or sanction who they loved or sanction their spiritual unions - only their legal ties as a typical marriage contract. It is no business of the government who loves who once you are an adult.

 
timschochet said:
It's an interesting question. I'm not sure. 

But I suspect you represent an outlier. Public attitudes about gay marriage have changed pretty rapidly, and I think some of it is due to shaming. 
Click to expand...
You were one of the ones that attacked me.

 
bueno said:
So, you're going to go all Engels on our children now? 
Click to expand...
Considering that the right has devolved into a pack of mouth-breathing, science denying, Bible thumping, blind obstructionist fools led by an incompetent bigoted reality TV star, what exactly would you suggest?

 
bueno said:
No, I'm saying that the reasoning that many gays were presenting was "We should have our love recognized." I disagreed. They should not be asking the government to recognize or sanction who they loved or sanction their spiritual unions - only their legal ties as a typical marriage contract. It is no business of the government who loves who once you are an adult.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to mind my business when it comes to whoevers love, so I think there's agreement that I don't need to jump up and down happy because Jack and Bob got married, or Jack and Jill, or Jill and Susan, etc. As long as it is equally legal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
I seriously doubt that. I spent a lot of time here defending moderate views about gay marriage, and how one could be against gay marriage without being a bigot. 
Click to expand...
The position that someone would think they have a vote or a say in which type of people can marry each other is barbaric and loathsome. History won't judge this kindly, as Obama wisely saw. The fact he had to "evolve" on the matter is disgusting, but in a way fairly telling of where things have progressed on the matter. The shift on this issue and a few other social issues (like medical marijuana for example) are what give me hope this union will continue to become more perfect as we progress.

 
Coeur de Lion said:
Considering that the right has devolved into a pack of mouth-breathing, science denying, Bible thumping, blind obstructionist fools led by an incompetent bigoted reality TV star, what exactly would you suggest?
Click to expand...
The entire right has not devolved into that. According to Huffington post, about 90% of kids attend public school while 10% attend private school or are home-schooled. If you are going to say that 40% or more of the country (Trump's likely lowest vote percentage) need to have their kids better educated, I'd say "we" have done a real poor job of providing education already.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I'm happy to mind my business when it comes to whoevers love, so I think there's agreement that I don't need to jump up and down happy because Jack and Bob got married, or Jack and Jill, or Jill and Susan, etc. As long as it is equally legal.
Click to expand...
Then you agree that the government should mind their own business as to who loves who too? ((So long as both are consenting?)

 
timschochet said:
I seriously doubt that. I spent a lot of time here defending moderate views about gay marriage, and how one could be against gay marriage without being a bigot. 
Click to expand...
You were. I remember it vividly. You were one of the reasons I took a vacation.

 
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
127
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: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top