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 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

over/under on the first debate television ratings? 

I mean holy Christ, this is going to be SuperBowl esque.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love that kasich is still hanging in there. So good. 
:goodposting:  

So, any legitimate 3rd party candidates that could possibly give the two a run for their money??

Or am I stuck "wasting my vote" yet again for president, as I won't vote for either of the "Main" candidates :X ?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So Old Man Cruz says God has anointed his son to become president and lead the nation into a new era of Christian leadership. But that's not too crazy for Our Donald to trump! He pulls a National Enquirer claim out about Rafe helping Oswald kill JFK and thrashes (far)Ted in Indiana, home of down-to-earth, common sensical Hoosiers.

Nobody has as many loons as we do. We have the best loons. You're gonna get tired of being the looniest, we have so many great loons.

 
And then there was one.

Round and round the mulberry bush, the monkey chased the weasel, the monkey thought it was a joke...... crucify Rience Priebus.

 
So, besides seeing Trump Quote National Enquirer stories, quote/re-tweet things from White Supremely groups and others, we also get the luxury of getting quotes like the following for the next 6 months:

But I think one of my strengths is going — one of my really great strengths will be the military, will be getting us out and winning and getting us out of the mess we’re in, in the Middle East.”
Going to be a VERY long 6 months :X

 
RedStateVerified account @RedState 5h5 hours ago

Republicans Should Confirm Merrick Garland ASAP.
:lol: been waiting for that.. They can either confirm someone most on the right supported a couple years back..

Or wait for Hillary, who has already said she wants a more "liberal" judge on the court, to nominate her candidate. :mellow:

 
It's absurd that they haven't already...though, I doubt Hillary is capable of going much more "liberal" than Garland.
Why? 

I thought the reason he got the nomination is that he was pretty middle-of-the-road and would be nearly impossible to deny, no?

 
It's absurd that they haven't already...though, I doubt Hillary is capable of going much more "liberal" than Garland.
The Red State rationale was partially that she could go more liberal but also younger, which seemed to be the bigger concern. Someone liberal who would be on the court for 20-30 years vs. 10-15. 

We are definitely through the looking glass though. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As far as I'm concerned it's been a heaping pile of s**t sandwiches for 12 years now from both parties.
While that's true, there's a big difference between disappointing politicians, and people that have absolutely no experience or knowledge of the job they are running for.

Sarah Palin couldn't name a Supreme Court ruling.

Donald Trump had no idea what the Nuclear Triad was.

This is what he was referring to. The nomination of someone wildly unqualified for the job they are trying to get.

 
Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg and Breyer.  I don't think Hillary is to the right of Bill.
:goodposting:

While she certainly won't want to upset her own apple cart in any way at all, I kind of doubt she cares all that much about potentially closing off the trough for the next generations coming down the pipeline.
You guys make good points.  Hadn't thought about them.  I guess time will tell.  I'll be shocked if her first nomination is close to actual liberal though....maybe her 2nd or 3rd try?

 
Been saying from the very beginning that if you take away the hawkish immigration stance that Trump was left of Hillary and Obama.  Did any of you believe me, doubt it.  

Chickens coming home to roost here folks.

 
As long as there's a gun lobby I don't see Garland getting nominated.  He is so overwhelmingly anti-gun that the Democrat media is circling the wagons writing stories about how disappointed they are that Obama nominated such a moderate.

I especially get a kick out of the articles that purport that his liberal positions are "myths".  There are actual cases that can be pointed to that highlight how far to the left he is (especially with regards to the second amendment.)

Our 9th justice should probably be a big roulette wheel with "for" or "against" tabs.  Let fate decide, baby.

 
As long as there's a gun lobby I don't see Garland getting nominated.  He is so overwhelmingly anti-gun that the Democrat media is circling the wagons writing stories about how disappointed they are that Obama nominated such a moderate.

I especially get a kick out of the articles that purport that his liberal positions are "myths".  There are actual cases that can be pointed to that highlight how far to the left he is (especially with regards to the second amendment.)

Our 9th justice should probably be a big roulette wheel with "for" or "against" tabs.  Let fate decide, baby.
My understanding is that the gun cases you're talking about were pre-Heller and he was just following the law as it existed at the time. :shrug:

 
Really hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above".. :popcorn:

 
Really hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above".. :popcorn:
This doesn't make sense to me. Just vote Hilary. Same outcome, better drama. 

 
This doesn't make sense to me. Just vote Hilary. Same outcome, better drama. 
I refuse to vote for either of the idiots the two parties are putting forth.  At this point, if a legitimate 3rd party candidate doesn't present themselves, I may just write in "none of the above"... :mellow:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I refuse to vote for either of the idiots the two parties are putting forth.  At this point, if a legitimate 3rd party candidate doesn't present themselves, I may just write in "none of the above"... :mellow:
there is a legitimate 3rd party candidate

 
Really hoping the rumors of the GOP putting together a viable 3rd party candidate comes true... sure it will pretty well guarantee a Hillary presidency but, depending on who they choose, many of us will actually have someone to vote for in the presidency race other than "none of the above".. :popcorn:
The GOP would rather lose than win?  All they have to do is fully support Trump and they destroy Hilary.  So dumb of them IMO 

 
Hillary is winning regardless. I think the Republicans might be able to do better down-ballot if there is a more traditional conservative option on the ballot along with Trump. I'm sure that's what most of the discussion going on right now is about. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top