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 Presidential Race Thread*** Debate #3 TONIGHT! (1 Viewer)

The Commish

Footballguy
Debate Schedule/Particulars

TV Channels – Each debate will be broadcast live on C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, as well as all cable news channels including CNN, Fox News and MSNBC among others.
 

Time – The debates will air from 9pm to 10:30pm ET (8pm – 9:30pm CT, 7pm – 8:30pm MT, 6pm – 7:30pm PT)
 

09/26/2016 - First Presidential Debate

10/4/2016 - Vice Presidential Debate

10/9/2016 - Second Presidential Debate

10/19/2016 - Third Presidential Debate

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As this article points out....  thanks to the out of date Electoral College... 

The "Fat Lady",  6 months before the election, is already warming up her final notes. :mellow:
Another pretty good point I saw the other day, but can't recall the source at the moment, put it this way:

In order for Trump to win he either has to do significantly better with white men than Romney did in 2012, or Clinton has to do much worse with minorities and women than Obama. 

Neither of those seems likely. 

 
Observation:  It's getting tough to tell the unhinged Hillary supporters from the unhinged Trump supporters :oldunsure:   

 
I don't think either would be very fast.  Trump in a race though, he would have the best shoes, the best. And her cankles and pants suits would slow her down.

 
So, now that we know how low the bar has to be for Hillary to be viable, are we seeing the bottom of the barrel or can it get worse?  If Trump keeps going with the stupid, the GOP isn't going to nominate him.

 
I thought there was going to be a "huge" independent canidate announcement?

It was so big it had Trump going on one of his :rant: / :cry: and nothing...

 
So, now that we know how low the bar has to be for Hillary to be viable, are we seeing the bottom of the barrel or can it get worse?  If Trump keeps going with the stupid, the GOP isn't going to nominate him.
Without this being torn in every direction i would just like to say I agree with the initial premise but unfortunately millions voted for him, right or wrong, the people have spoken. Do we risk anarchy and violence by simply ignoring everyone and nominating one of the others?

Trump has had a terrible week or two and it's a shame because there was plenty he could have jumped on and done well. He seems to do better when attacked vs simply going on the attack like he did with the judge in his case. If he just let it go I think a lot folks would have skipped it but then he spotlighted the judge and got spanked by Newt Gingrich, that's not good. 

 
Without this being torn in every direction i would just like to say I agree with the initial premise but unfortunately millions voted for him, right or wrong, the people have spoken. Do we risk anarchy and violence by simply ignoring everyone and nominating one of the others?

Trump has had a terrible week or two and it's a shame because there was plenty he could have jumped on and done well. He seems to do better when attacked vs simply going on the attack like he did with the judge in his case. If he just let it go I think a lot folks would have skipped it but then he spotlighted the judge and got spanked by Newt Gingrich, that's not good. 
It's clear there is a great amount of tolerance for the stupid, but I'm not sure there's an endless supply.  I can see a scenario where his act wears thin happening pretty quickly.  Yeah there will be some diehards that act out, but I'm not sure that is a large enough group to worry about significant violence.  Trump seems to think that just because the GOP is "on his team" they have to support him regardless of what he say, no matter how stupid.  We'll see if he's learned his lesson after this last week's across the board rejection of his comments.  I doubt it.

 
Well, it didn't take long for us to get by the "act Presidential" requirement...it's really a bunch of people bullied in high school trying to bully each other isn't it? :bag:  

 
Donald Trump needs huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge help reading from a teleprompter...good God he's brutal :lmao:   

To his credit, he held it together during the protest portion of the program.  You could tell he wanted to say something and worked really hard at keeping his mouth shut....pretty damn entertaining.

Hillary was speaking to planned parenthood.  I wish she was genuine with the other 90% of her issues like she is with women's rights.  Would make things a lot easier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Will we see "official" Presidential polls that have three options on them or will the media forego their job and just stick to the two "real" parties?

 
So if I am reading between the lines correctly the following is true:

One option doesn't know the difference between being an American born citizen of Afghan descent and being an Afghan.

The other option is ok with an arm of the federal government having say over our Constitutional rights without any sort of due process....just being on a list is enough.

:bag:  

 
So if I am reading between the lines correctly the following is true:

One option doesn't know the difference between being an American born citizen of Afghan descent and being an Afghan.

The other option is ok with an arm of the federal government having say over our Constitutional rights without any sort of due process....just being on a list is enough.

:bag:  
stop

 
So if I am reading between the lines correctly the following is true:

One option doesn't know the difference between being an American born citizen of Afghan descent and being an Afghan.

The other option is ok with an arm of the federal government having say over our Constitutional rights without any sort of due process....just being on a list is enough.

:bag:  
stop
Is this accurate?

"If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links, you shouldn't be able to go buy a gun, no questions asked," 
I haven't watched either of their speeches.  Just read the text.  If she didn't say this, I take back my comment.

 
Is this accurate?

I haven't watched either of their speeches.  Just read the text.  If she didn't say this, I take back my comment.
Depends how its read.  I would agree, that if you are are being watched for suspected terrorist links, you should not be able to purchase a weapon without questions being asked.

If they mean, you should not be able to at all?  Without due process...then I would agree that is wrong.

 
Is this accurate?

I haven't watched either of their speeches.  Just read the text.  If she didn't say this, I take back my comment.
Depends how its read.  I would agree, that if you are are being watched for suspected terrorist links, you should not be able to purchase a weapon without questions being asked.

If they mean, you should not be able to at all?  Without due process...then I would agree that is wrong.
I have seen zero speeches or comments that use the words due process.  Now, I'm sure "clarifications" are coming.  Because this is an absurd position to take for either of these dopes.  I have no problem with a list of this sort that's been through the appropriate channels to verify validity/worthiness of the names on the list.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And we know, as of today, that's a list of the FBI's own making.  They add and remove as they feel appropriate.  That isn't any sort of due process.

 
And we know, as of today, that's a list of the FBI's own making.  They add and remove as they feel appropriate.  That isn't any sort of due process.
Is it enough to delay a purchase if such flags exist?  Not deny the right to bear arms...but is delaying while vetting takes place allowed.  Im quite sure the gun lobby would fight that too.

 
Is this accurate?

I haven't watched either of their speeches.  Just read the text.  If she didn't say this, I take back my comment.
The eyeroll was intended to apply to the notion that there is a "Constitutional right" to own a gun that may not be regulated absent due process. Even if you are stubborn enough to ignore the word "militia" as a qualifier to Second Amendment rights, the words "well regulated" are right there at the start of it.  Bombs are arms- do you think a law preventing private citizens from owning bombs constitutes withholding a Constitutional right without due process?  Or is that just part of the permissible regulation of the right explicitly mentioned in the Amendment?

Also the way you phrased it was total nonsense.  " an arm of the federal government having say over our Constitutional rights without any sort of due process." Puh-lease.  She interprets the 2nd Amendment differently than you do. That doesn't mean she's in favor of granting one branch of government authority to supersede the other two.  Any legislation prohibiting people on the watch list from purchasing certain weapons would still have to pass both houses of Congress, get signed by the president and then survive judicial challenge.  All three branches would have a say before anyone was prohibited from buying or owning any weapon. Take it down a few notches.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is this accurate?

I haven't watched either of their speeches.  Just read the text.  If she didn't say this, I take back my comment.
She said it but I believe it's not the right way to go for various reasons, including Constitutionally. First, if someone knew they would be denied a gun purchase they would avoid it and figure out another way to mass murder people.  Second, by allowing the purchase with a 72 hour period it gives the FBI time to monitor the person without them getting their guard up.  If the FBI had done this with the Orlando shooter they would have prevented 50+ deaths.

 
Is it enough to delay a purchase if such flags exist?  Not deny the right to bear arms...but is delaying while vetting takes place allowed.  Im quite sure the gun lobby would fight that too.
Probably, but I don't have a particular problem with restriction, slow down etc as long as the list has been through some sort of validation process via our judicial system.

 
Is this accurate?

I haven't watched either of their speeches.  Just read the text.  If she didn't say this, I take back my comment.
The eyeroll was intended to apply to the notion that there is a "Constitutional right" to own a gun that may not be regulated absent due process. Even if you are stubborn enough to ignore the word "militia" as a qualifier to Second Amendment rights, the words "well regulated" are right there at the start of it.  Bombs are arms- do you think a law preventing private citizens from owning bombs constitutes withholding a Constitutional right without due process?  Or is that just part of the permissible regulation of the right explicitly mentioned in the Amendment?

Also the way you phrased it was total nonsense.  " an arm of the federal government having say over our Constitutional rights without any sort of due process." Puh-lease.  She interprets the 2nd Amendment differently than you do. That doesn't mean she's in favor of granting one branch of government authority to supersede the other two.  Any legislation prohibiting people on the watch list from purchasing certain weapons would still have to pass both houses of Congress, get signed by the president and then survive judicial challenge.  All three branches would have a say before anyone was prohibited from buying or owning any weapon. Take it down a few notches.
All of this is written based on the premise that due process has been afforded.  None of this has been stated by her to my knowledge.  You've read way more into her words than I have at this point.  I took them at face value.  The blatant vagueness of the comments and the position the comments alone assume is absurd.  I stand by that.  If you want to go down this "what she meant when she said....." path, that's fine.  I was dealing with what she said which was she was good with being on this FBI watch list as "enough" to keep people from having guns.  

 
The Feinstein bill that people are taking about allows for administrative appeal, and appeal to courts, if you believe you have been wrongly denied the ability to purchase a firearm.

 
Don Quixote said:
The Feinstein bill that people are taking about allows for administrative appeal, and appeal to courts, if you believe you have been wrongly denied the ability to purchase a firearm.
If I'm being honest, I'm most interested on the judicial process of getting put on the list in the first place.  I'd like to understand what the proposals are for that.  It's great that there's an appeals process if you get put on the list incorrectly, but it means very little if they can just throw your name on the list under no certain, documented protocol.  That seems completely backwards to me.

 
If I'm being honest, I'm most interested on the judicial process of getting put on the list in the first place.  I'd like to understand what the proposals are for that.  It's great that there's an appeals process if you get put on the list incorrectly, but it means very little if they can just throw your name on the list under no certain, documented protocol.  That seems completely backwards to me.


If all it takes to get on the list is Mr. Ham calling the FBI and saying "This guy Otis I know from the Internet says he knows of an upcoming attack", then certainly that's not enough to fully prohibit firearms purchases or any other restrictions on constitutional rights. 

If there's more to it, like a judge signing a data collection warrant or a grand jury review or something like that, I'd be more flexible. 

 
I now take a little bit of comfort in my bewilderment of this caucus process earlier in the year.  Some states seem to be moving away from them.  Minny and Maine have proposed changes for next cycle and the people of Colorado are getting enough signatures to have it brought to the states.

The next logical thing would be tackling all those states where our tax dollars pay for the primaries and opening them up so anyone can vote in them.  I am also open to them closing them and having the parties pay for them on their own.  Either would work fine for me.

 
So, I think I am going to be incredibly disappointed.  Trump is crapping all over himself and while I knew he'd never have a chance, I did think he'd keep things entertaining as he and Hillary raced to the bottom of the barrel.  However, I'm already seeing fizzle out here which would be very disappointing from an entertainment perspective.  We'll be left with SSDD and a massively missed opportunity to change direction as a country. :kicksrock:  

 
So, I think I am going to be incredibly disappointed.  Trump is crapping all over himself and while I knew he'd never have a chance, I did think he'd keep things entertaining as he and Hillary raced to the bottom of the barrel.  However, I'm already seeing fizzle out here which would be very disappointing from an entertainment perspective.  We'll be left with SSDD and a massively missed opportunity to change direction as a country. :kicksrock:  
Just not sure how people think Trumpy would change the direction of this country...It's bad enough right now having Obama vs. the Republicans and nothing getting done...

Can't imagine Trump vs. the Republicans vs. the Democrats..

Basically the definition of a :tfp: IMO.

 
Trump continues down the path of "stupid" a lot faster than anyone could imagine.  The campaign manager is out.  I am guessing he'll mask the mindbogglingly (yes, that's a word) stupid timing of this announcement as "making an example of those who don't cut it" by the campaign, being "not political" etc and I am absolutely confident his supporters will gobble it up like a crack whore looking for their next fix.  

 
Trump continues down the path of "stupid" a lot faster than anyone could imagine.  The campaign manager is out.  I am guessing he'll mask the mindbogglingly (yes, that's a word) stupid timing of this announcement as "making an example of those who don't cut it" by the campaign, being "not political" etc and I am absolutely confident his supporters will gobble it up like a crack whore looking for their next fix.  
He wants his ego stroked with a "look at me I could have won had I really tried :bowtie: " ... without needing to deal with the headaches the job would bring him.

I think from here on out he'll continue to say and do things he thinks will keep him from winning.. :mellow:

 
Certainly an interesting theory snooger.  I can't help but wonder how much is show and how much is him being a complete idiot.

 
"Noland, Mary Anne Allfriend. Faced with the prospect of voting for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, Mary Anne Noland of Richmond chose, instead, to pass into the eternal love of God on Sunday May 15, 2016 at the age of 68."

 
Certainly an interesting theory snooger.  I can't help but wonder how much is show and how much is him being a complete idiot.
During the primaries someone that was once part of his team was quoted as saying he was only going to run so he could prove he could come in 2nd or 3rd..

Then the contenders that showed up were worse then he was and he managed actually win and I think he feels "stuck"..

Wouldn't help his ego if he had dropped.. Best in his view if he loses and will have the excuse of "Had the Republicans leaders backed me we would have destroyed Hillary"..

Then again, as messed up as the voters are... Hillary supporters will feel she has this wrapped up, won't show up to vote in the numbers expected, and Trump will be who WE are stuck with :scared:

 
During the primaries someone that was once part of his team was quoted as saying he was only going to run so he could prove he could come in 2nd or 3rd..

Then the contenders that showed up were worse then he was and he managed actually win and I think he feels "stuck"..

Wouldn't help his ego if he had dropped.. Best in his view if he loses and will have the excuse of "Had the Republicans leaders backed me we would have destroyed Hillary"..

Then again, as messed up as the voters are... Hillary supporters will feel she has this wrapped up, won't show up to vote in the numbers expected, and Trump will be who WE are stuck with :scared:
Gonna be a tough sell to anyone but his mindless followers given his actions and refusal to engage wealthy GOP donors.  At least this goat rodeo will get us through to football season.  At this point the Hillary and Trump diehards seem very similar...push them far enough and pull back the layers of the onion far enough and we get to "he/she isn't their opponent"  It's quite the election cycle.  

 
Well, if you exclude the Trump :hophead:  in the news, the political discussions have come to a screeching halt (at least as it pertains to the election).  Not sure what happened, but even the Hillary thread here is dropping to the 2nd-3rd page.  Are we already at the "####, these are the two options we came up with" phase already?  Is it sinking in that quickly and everyone is processing it?

 
Well, if you exclude the Trump :hophead:  in the news, the political discussions have come to a screeching halt (at least as it pertains to the election).  Not sure what happened, but even the Hillary thread here is dropping to the 2nd-3rd page.  Are we already at the "####, these are the two options we came up with" phase already?  Is it sinking in that quickly and everyone is processing it?
There's no drama. Everyone with a semi-working brain knows that it's already over, and Hillary is the next President. That's not really something to be excited about.

 
Well, if you exclude the Trump :hophead:  in the news, the political discussions have come to a screeching halt (at least as it pertains to the election).  Not sure what happened, but even the Hillary thread here is dropping to the 2nd-3rd page.  Are we already at the "####, these are the two options we came up with" phase already?  Is it sinking in that quickly and everyone is processing it?
There's no drama. Everyone with a semi-working brain knows that it's already over, and Hillary is the next President. That's not really something to be excited about
Which makes it more puzzling to me that there isn't more :hophead:  about it....not a whole lot of this floating around the United States at the moment.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top