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.

Rightwing Extremist and Rightwing Terrorists (1 Viewer)

I don't think so, multiple references to invasion etc are still up.
Yeah, looks like this wasn’t true. It does look like he may have deleted his tweets about El Paso and Dayton only to repost them the same way again. Some are speculating it was because he didn’t like the comments so he wanted to get the replies off his tweets. As Saints said, could have been to the comma. 

Wouldn’t you rather have an acknowledgement it wasn’t a good idea given these events than more of it? Not sure how it would be hiding something that’s been out there for however long. 
Looks like it was BS anyway. If he was embarrassed or upset but his language, he should come out and say so like and adult, not just erase some old tweets.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump almost never deletes anything because of content, just spelling corrections and that kind of thing. He’s got old ads for Oreos and stuff like that he used to tweet out, I guess for endorsement fees, they’re still up even though he’s president. Hence ‘there’s always a tweet’, I’d be surprised if he deletes anything because of this.

 
It would've been good if he'd never tweeted them in the first place, but this is just destruction of evidence.
Didn't the SC just recently rule that his personal twitter was to be held to the same standard as the @POTUS account?  I know they ruled that he couldn't block people.

 
The President has given us thousands of examples, in both word and deed, showing he prescribes to and supports the exact same ideology as these shooters. Of course, he hasn't come out and said "I support the shooters", but he hasn't condemned them either. In fact there's a mountain of evidence to indicate that he probably supports the shootings themselves and not just the fetid philosophy being used to justify them. Why wouldn't he? The ledger is infinity to zero when it comes to evidence of where his allegiance lies. 
Implying that by using typical statements in support of the President supports the President who supports the shooters is exactly what was done, and this quote just exemplifies it. I'm not following you down the red herring hole about support of Trump, I'm saying that this is garbage. OrtontoOlsen and SheriffBart did just that, and the refusal to call anyone out on it is typical of the fetid garbage that goes on here in the PSF. 

What a joke. Anybody reading the whole thread and can see the jabs and the implications. Anyone not blind, that is.  

 
It's as if every time a pro-choice judge was appointed I started quoting typically eugenic arguments made by the left here in support of abortion and eugenics. It'd be obvious, and I'd get called out. It's stark, this contrast. It's right on the page before. People are moving the Venn diagram of Trump supporters from spelling his name out in guns to the stock market to other things. It's a joke. 

 
The President has given us thousands of examples, in both word and deed, showing he prescribes to and supports the exact same ideology as these shooters. Of course, he hasn't come out and said "I support the shooters", but he hasn't condemned them either. In fact there's a mountain of evidence to indicate that he probably supports the shootings themselves and not just the fetid philosophy being used to justify them. Why wouldn't he? The ledger is infinity to zero when it comes to evidence of where his allegiance lies. 
And this is unbelievable. It's saying that there's evidence that he "probably supports" the execution of civilians by vigilantes. 

This is the garbage I'm talking about it. This is almost treason.  

 
I don't report, but I wish I did. I get suspended for fighting with squistion about inane things; these guys like posts that say that there's "evidence to indicate that he probably supports the shootings themselves" and nothing is done. 

This is horse####.  

 
I don't report, but I wish I did. I get suspended for fighting with squistion about inane things; these guys like posts that say that there's "evidence to indicate that he probably supports the shootings themselves" and nothing is done. 

This is horse####.  
I had a post deleted telling the real truth.  It happens on all sides.

 
Its not even close to treason.
Whatever. Use it loosely, and make it what it's worth. That's garbage bull####, and is disloyal as a citizen, which is damn close to treason, actually. 

But whatever, sho, you correct away and like posts whereby the poster claims that the President probably supports the shootings. That's a good look for you.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, and I want to fight all the left-wing Hard Harrys that come out of the woodwork to get their internet jollies by typing angry sentences in their keyboards. 

Save it, guys. I'm not for you.  

 
Whatever. Use it loosely, and make it what it's worth. That's garbage bull####, and is disloyal as a citizen, which is damn close to treason, actually. 

But whatever, sho, you correct away and like posts whereby the poster claims that the President probably supports the shootings. That's a good look for you.  
that's garbage bullsh$t but its not when the president calls other humans filthy and animals.  Dehumanizing them in the eyes of his followers making it so much easier to pull the trigger

 
Whatever. Use it loosely, and make it what it's worth. That's garbage bull####, and is disloyal as a citizen, which is damn close to treason, actually. 

But whatever, sho, you correct away and like posts whereby the poster claims that the President probably supports the shootings. That's a good look for you.  
Given what was said at the one rally about shooting people and his panhandle reply.  And the 2nd amendment people comment during the campaign. Its not as far fetched as you make it

 
Trump does not support the shootings. I agree with Rock on that.  Trump is a racist and says horrible things but that’s too far.

 
Trump does not support the shootings. I agree with Rock on that.  Trump is a racist and says horrible things but that’s too far.
I don't see anyone really saying he supports the shootings

Just that his inflammatory languages emboldens those that would do these things

And the fact that you even have to type that about the President is a perfect example of just how far we have fallen

 
Trump does not support the shootings. I agree with Rock on that.  Trump is a racist and says horrible things but that’s too far.
And the quotes I was talking about imply that his supporters do, which is also a bridge too far. It's horrific. It has no place in debate. It's what we call a smear tactic, and OrtontoOlsen and SheriffBart and Bananafish are using it. 

If people can't see that, that's not my fault.  

 
I don't see anyone really saying he supports the shootings

Just that his inflammatory languages emboldens those that would do these things

And the fact that you even have to type that about the President is a perfect example of just how far we have fallen
Banafish just did in the quoted text box and in quotes I have in my posts. It said there is evidence leading him to believe he "probably" supports the shootings.  

 
And the quotes I was talking about imply that his supporters do, which is also a bridge too far. It's horrific. It has no place in debate. It's what we call a smear tactic, and OrtontoOlsen and SheriffBart and Bananafish are using it. 

If people can't see that, that's not my fault.  
Can you provide a specific link?

 
Probably so...but calling it treason to even say it is ridiculous.
No, it's actually very close definitionally. You're just wrong again and you're changing the subject to a red herring and playing board instigator again, which is typical #### for you.  

 
And the quotes I was talking about imply that his supporters do, which is also a bridge too far. It's horrific. It has no place in debate. It's what we call a smear tactic, and OrtontoOlsen and SheriffBart and Bananafish are using it. 

If people can't see that, that's not my fault.  
People can see it but unfortunately it happens in here all the time. 

 
Banafish just did in the quoted text box and in quotes I have in my posts. It said there is evidence leading him to believe he "probably" supports the shootings.  
sorry missed that one but the great majority do not make that claim...there's a link for sure but i have no idea, nor do you, on whether he supports these people

Trump clearly believes these people are subhuman however

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can you provide a specific link?
You're more than welcome to find it back on the page before this or two. It's a train of thought about spelling Trump with guns to making a leap about getting their eyes fixed regarding what was said in the manifesto by his supporters. This was piled on by SherriffBart's stock market quote.  

 
No, it's actually very close definitionally. You're just wrong again and you're changing the subject to a red herring and playing board instigator again, which is typical #### for you.  
WTF?  No changing any subject and not instigating anything.  No need to get personal man.

Have fun

 
Trump does not want people to go around shooting, but his otherization of minorities and super weak "oh no please don't" towards white supremacists gives them more courage to do these things, thinking they have support. Then you have people like Tucker Carlson and the internet warlords doing the equivalent of force feeding these shooters donuts, but get offended if you mention they are the reason why they are fat.

 
It would go a long way if Trump acknowledged the idea that his words, rhetoric and lackadaisical attitudes towards condemning comments made by others in his presence could be perceived by some of his supporters as endorsing bad behavior and that going forward....he'll do everything in his power to tone down his hatred and use his bully pulpit to shut down horrible rhetoric in his presence.  It would make him look like he actually cares about healing a divide in this country.  But I don't think he will.....and his silence  (or if not his silence...his wishy washy "there are good people on both sides" commentary) will cost him and his Party in the 2020 elections.  

 
And the quotes I was talking about imply that his supporters do, which is also a bridge too far. It's horrific. It has no place in debate. It's what we call a smear tactic, and OrtontoOlsen and SheriffBart and Bananafish are using it. 

If people can't see that, that's not my fault.  
I think that rally in OK disagrees with you.

 
It's as if every time a pro-choice judge was appointed I started quoting typically eugenic arguments made by the left here in support of abortion and eugenics. It'd be obvious, and I'd get called out. It's stark, this contrast. It's right on the page before. People are moving the Venn diagram of Trump supporters from spelling his name out in guns to the stock market to other things. It's a joke. 
It has become disturbingly common for people to defend the politicians on their side of the aisle instead of demanding that they change things.  It's almost the antithesis of democracy, that people change what they want to support their leaders instead of choosing leaders who support what they want, but once these guys are in office that happens a lot. 

It's at the core of whataboutism. Obama approved a huge stimulus package ar the start of his term?  Yeah but it was proposed and approved by a Republican Congress.  Wait. Do we like big stimulus packages or not?  

Trump might have obstructed justice.  Oh yeah? Clinton obstructed justice. 

It's gotten so bad that we had palpable confusion when lefties brought up the trump comments about Epstein liking girls on the younger side and righties said aha Clinton used top hang out with him too and lefties said ok if they were raping kids then throw then both in jail.  

That's not everyone on the right.  And sadly I'm sure there are people on the left who would argue against Clinton being investigated for his connections to child rape. 

That environment has gotten us here.  

1 Trump says things that appeal to racists. 

2 People accuse trump of being racist,

3 His supporters defend him saying that he's not a racist, and attack people who "cry racism"

4 people say trump's racist comments are going to get people killed. 

5 His supporters defend him saying that people who commit mass homicides are mentally ill and not doing this because of trump's comments.

6 someone kills a bunch of people and has a bunch of connections to trump including using language he's uses and using talking points he espouses

7 his supporters defend him saying that it's not trump causing this

8 trump doesn't actually apologize.  He doesn't walk back his comments. He doesn't give a speech saying that these tragedies are unacceptable and that the people who are doing this are evil.  He doesn't decry racism.  

9 his supporters have a choice, and their decision defines their culpability.  Everyone posting here on an internet message board that thousands of people read can choose whether to decry his milquetoast response, or accept his actions.  If you accept his actions, you should prepare to be judged for it. 

And if you didn't speak up when domestic terrorists attacked the media, who trump called the enemy of the people, and you continued to support him while he continued to use that language, and you didn't demand better, then you deserve to be judged for it. 

More importantly though, you should be introspective. Blaming the people who blame you is denying your own culpability.  

Of course,  if you're one of the good guys who has demanded that trump change his language, you can absolutely complain about being lumped in. Because it's not only the support of trump that's the issue.  You can support a politician and demand better. 

And if people had the spine to do that, innocentlives might have been saved. 

 
You're more than welcome to find it back on the page before this or two. It's a train of thought about spelling Trump with guns to making a leap about getting their eyes fixed regarding what was said in the manifesto by his supporters. This was piled on by SherriffBart's stock market quote.  
You’re more than welcome to back up your statement with an actual link.   Burden of proof is on you.  But you know that.

 
Instead of wildly lashing out at everyone who connects your guy to terrorism, maybe a little introspection is in order?
again the fact that we are having this conversation about the president is remarkable.  how did we even get here?

 
  • Smile
Reactions: Ned
You’re more than welcome to back up your statement with an actual link.   Burden of proof is on you.  But you know that.
It's not on me at all. Burden of proof is for all to see. I'm not letting you assign burden of proof. Entire motions in cases are filed over burdens of proof. It's right there on the page before. 

 
Instead of wildly lashing out at everyone who connects your guy to terrorism, maybe a little introspection is in order?
He's not my guy. I'm not "wildly" lashing out at anybody. I'm saying that there are people equating support of him with support of the shootings. I'm saying that there are people -- and they've said it in this thread -- that are claiming that the President supports these shootings. 

It's a disgrace.  

 
It's not on me at all. Burden of proof is for all to see. I'm not letting you assign burden of proof. Entire motions in cases are filed over burdens of proof. It's right there on the page before. 
:lmao:  Weren’t you the one talking about “debate tactics” earlier? 

 
OrtonToOlsen said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You need to hit up Lens Crafters.  That clearly says “economic anxiety”.
This is what has you all riled up, rock?  I liked this post, because it made me snicker a little.  You seem to be the one painting with a broad brush here, though.  I read this, along with Bart's post, as meaning some Trump supporters are racist but try to paint their support as economic.  It's undoubtedly true.  It's also undoubtedly true that that doesn't describe all or necessarily even most of his supporters, but I found this a clever jab at the opposite broad brushers - those who pretend all or most Trump supporters became so because they'd been left behind in the economy.

I don't believe for a second that either of those posts were intended as you are stating.  You're reading way too much into them IMO.  The only post I've seen that went a bit over the line was from my GB bananafish, with whom I don't agree that Trump supports or implicitly agrees with the shootings such as El Paso.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It has become disturbingly common for people to defend the politicians on their side of the aisle instead of demanding that they change things.  It's almost the antithesis of democracy, that people change what they want to support their leaders instead of choosing leaders who support what they want, but once these guys are in office that happens a lot. 
Too long. Did read. 

This was an if-then flowchart and I have way too little time to go through all the bullet points in rebuttal. Not awful, but surmises and assumes an awful lot for an if/then flowchart...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what has you all riled up, rock?  I liked this post, because it made me snicker a little.  You seem to be the one painting with a broad brush here, though.  I read this, along with Bart's post, as meaning some Trump supporters are racist but try to paint their support as economic.  It's undoubtedly true.  It's also undoubtedly true that that doesn't describe all or necessarily even most of his supporters, but I found this a clever jab at the opposite broad brushers - those who pretend all or most Trump supporters became so because they'd been left behind in the economy.

I don't believe for a second that either of those posts were intended as you are stating.  The only post I've seen that went a bit over the line was from my GB bananafish, with whom I don't agree that Trump supports or implicitly agrees with the shootings such as El Paso.
yea i'm new to conversation but i don't see it either

 
Too long. Did read. 

This was an if-then flowchart and I have way too little time to go through all the bullet points. Not awful, but surmises and assumes an awful lot for an if/then flowchart...
i only used the word "if" to distinguish between people who accept trump's language and refusal to apologize for it, and people who don't.  

I even numbered the points to make it easier for people to argue with.  If you think I'm summising too much, I'll gladly back up any statement i made. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top