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.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (4 Viewers)

I questioned weaponized because nobody has actually done that with the 25th.

Also there is plenty of evidence he is mentally unfit.  Not enough proof and obviously never enough to oust him. But to say there is no evidence of it is inaccurate.
There is no evidence he is unfit for office. None.

You may not like him, and that is your right, but as far as being mentally unfit, that is simply untrue.

 
Weaponized? Yes- Trump is neither physically or intellectually unable to perform his duties. Unpopular with many- yes, but he was fairly elected and there is no evidence he is physically or mentally unable to serve.
How do you explain his inability to answer questions in his sworn submitted testimony?

 
So you have no problem when the media isn’t truthful?
I have no problem when media quotes people making predictions, or talk show hosts (often mistaken for media) makes predictions.  Sometimes predictions don't pan out, but it's important to think about consequences anyways.

 
I have no problem when media quotes people making predictions, or talk show hosts (often mistaken for media) makes predictions.  Sometimes predictions don't pan out, but it's important to think about consequences anyways.
I agree with you. Everyone makes mistakes. But, when you are wrong- just own it. Instead, we see a doubling down on sloppy journalism. Most people respect those that can admit making a mistake. I have referenced this before, but look at 2016- there were many articles about how wrong the media had gotten the results of the 2016 election and there were, at least in some places, a modicum on contrition. Fast forward to today and media speculation and poor reporting, in my view, has become even more shoddy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elaborate please. I'm not quite sure what you are asking.
Ok let's start with this:

- Ronald Reagan, he undertook live grand jury testimony in Iran Contra, his propensity for saying I don't know or recall was so great that people doubted his mental capacity.

- Hillary Clinton - undertook a direct, sworn interview by FBI agents, said I don't know/remember 37 times. That interview went on for like 3 hours or more IIRC.

- Donald Trump - refused to do live testimony, submitted written answers to a few brief questions which his lawyers were free to help him with and write for him, and he answered I don't know or I don't recall 36 times. Some questions he did not answer at all.

Let me know if you need more info, glad to provide it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok let's start with this:

- Ronald Reagan, he undertook live grand jury testimony in Iran Contra, his propensity for saying I don't know or recall was so great that people doubted his mental capacity.

- Hillary Clinton - undertook a direct, sworn interview by FBI agents, said I don't know/remember 37 times. That interview went on for like 3 hours or more IIRC.

- Donald Trump - refused to do live testimony, submitted written answers to a few brief questions which his lawyers were free to help him with and write for him, and he answered I don't know or I don't recall 36 times. Some questions he did not answer at all.

Let me know if you need more info, glad to provide it.
I look at this as a political calculation, not a mental deficiency. In his view, this whole endeavor was a "witch hunt" (his words, not mine). Thus, why would a person do anything more than the bare minimum with regard to answering questions that in his mind were calculated to do him harm? His recalcitrance, in my view, was born of a desire to avoid a process that was (in his mind) designed to cause damage to his presidency. Ultimately, think what you will of his ethical approach but I don't see this as evidence of being mentally unfit.

 
I look at this as a political calculation, not a mental deficiency. In his view, this whole endeavor was a "witch hunt" (his words, not mine). Thus, why would a person do anything more than the bare minimum with regard to answering questions that in his mind were calculated to do him harm? His recalcitrance, in my view, was born of a desire to avoid a process that was (in his mind) designed to cause damage to his presidency. Ultimately, think what you will of his ethical approach but I don't see this as evidence of being mentally unfit.
If you want to take the approach he was being evasive I agree with you. In fact I think he was lying and refusing to answer under oath in several instances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is no evidence he is unfit for office. None.

You may not like him, and that is your right, but as far as being mentally unfit, that is simply untrue.
I don’t think we need to have another lesson on evidence vs proof.  But yes there is evidence of his mental issues that would make him unfit.  You may not agree with it it. But there is evidence. 

 
I don’t think we need to have another lesson on evidence vs proof.  But yes there is evidence of his mental issues that would make him unfit.  You may not agree with it it. But there is evidence. 
The lesson of evidence vs proof is something the left clings to so it fits their narrative.

 
But the journalists didn’t report just facts. They reported things that were wrong. It seems the people that don’t like what they hear are the anti Trump people. 
I'm not sure of the breadth of the discussion here and what the scope of reporting is, but this comment is odd in the context of the Mueller report.  There's a group going out of their way to misrepresent what it says and another group accepting it for what it says.  Typically, those who don't like what they hear don't also embrace it as truth.  The calculus, at least as it pertains to the Mueller report, is demonstrably wrong in your statement.

 
I'm not sure of the breadth of the discussion here and what the scope of reporting is, but this comment is odd in the context of the Mueller report.  There's a group going out of their way to misrepresent what it says and another group accepting it for what it says.  Typically, those who don't like what they hear don't also embrace it as truth.  The calculus, at least as it pertains to the Mueller report, is demonstrably wrong in your statement.
This isn’t about The Mueller Report. It’s about what was reported over the last two years.

 
I don’t think we need to have another lesson on evidence vs proof.  But yes there is evidence of his mental issues that would make him unfit.  You may not agree with it it. But there is evidence. 
I'll bite, what are his diagnosed mental issues?

 
This isn’t about The Mueller Report. It’s about what was reported over the last two years.
Fair enough....don't have any input into the echo chamber channels here in the US.  I stick with NPR, BBC and Reuters who all seemed to be pretty dead on in the end.  I recommend more of you guys turning on these sources instead of complaining about the echo chamber Fox, CNN, MSNBC etc have created.  It's really the only way those will ever change :shrug:  

 
Ok "evidence" of mental illness 
Being a compulsive liar, inability to speak at times (covfefe as well as many other things he can’t say or makes up...them instead of admitting an error doubles down as if he meant to do it) lack of ability to work an umbrella, the inability to pay attention to briefings without pictures, several videos of him wandering around before someone escorts him to the right place which was painfully obvious where he was supposed to go)?

Those just quick off the top of my head. 

 
The mental gymnastics you pull off are pathetic.
If you haven’t figured out by now I’m not going to respond to you.  And I already have one shadow who does as you do...no need for another.  So you can stop with these attempts to bait me and get personal.  I don’t care what you have to say nor are you worth the time.  Goodbye. 

 
If you haven’t figured out by now I’m not going to respond to you.  And I already have one shadow who does as you do...no need for another.  So you can stop with these attempts to bait me and get personal.  I don’t care what you have to say nor are you worth the time.  Goodbye. 
Yet...you do respond. And I posted many links today to respond to your comments. Seek out your safe place. You need it. You thrive on stirring the pot and when you get called out for it you put people on ignore. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Scenario:

Cable news anchor is in studio, going through today's story of Trump's most recent shenanigans.  Anchor tosses to correspondent on Capitol Hill. Correspondent goes through their spiel, quoting a couple of lawmakers or other parties, answers a couple of questions based on people they've talked to that day regarding the story.  Tosses back to anchor. 

This is straight news. There is no opinion offered. Two journalists doing their job. But here's where it goes sideways:

Anchor is now joined by three other [experts/ consultants/ talking heads] to give their "view" of the story. These three are paid by the network, but they are NOT journalists.  They are paid because they (are supposed to) "know things." These three spend the next eight minutes arguing, talking over each other, making faces and generally falling over one another trying to spew out the statement du jour that will guarantee their name/ organization/ opinion will be a part of today's news cycle for as long as they can possibly get it to stay there. They offer rank conjecture, opinion and hyperbole,  much of which they may not even believe,  but they're being paid to offer it. After this cluster#### is concluded,  the anchor makes an exasperated noise or expression and segues into a commercial. 

One or two of these talking heads saying something ridiculous like "Trump will be led away from the oval office by Capitol police any day now" now becomes "this news network believes that Trump will be arrested tomorrow." Then the next set of talking heads, either on rival networks or talk radio or websites kowtowing to whichever ideology that pays their bills whips the whole thing into a tsunami of (mis)interpretation, misinformation,  opinion and hyperbolic,  broad-brushed statements about how crazy the "media" is.

The actual journalists did their jobs. They reported the facts as they understood them. Then the network did what the network does: whipped up controversy to increase ratings and revenue. 

Moral of the story: cable news is not news, unless it is of the breaking variety, such as in a disaster. If you want real, nuanced news, read it- don't watch it.

 
Being a compulsive liar, inability to speak at times (covfefe as well as many other things he can’t say or makes up...them instead of admitting an error doubles down as if he meant to do it) lack of ability to work an umbrella, the inability to pay attention to briefings without pictures, several videos of him wandering around before someone escorts him to the right place which was painfully obvious where he was supposed to go)?

Those just quick off the top of my head. 
Not sure that qualifies as mental illness, but you do you

 
Scenario:

Cable news anchor is in studio, going through today's story of Trump's most recent shenanigans.  Anchor tosses to correspondent on Capitol Hill. Correspondent goes through their spiel, quoting a couple of lawmakers or other parties, answers a couple of questions based on people they've talked to that day regarding the story.  Tosses back to anchor. 

This is straight news. There is no opinion offered. Two journalists doing their job. But here's where it goes sideways:

Anchor is now joined by three other [experts/ consultants/ talking heads] to give their "view" of the story. These three are paid by the network, but they are NOT journalists.  They are paid because they (are supposed to) "know things." These three spend the next eight minutes arguing, talking over each other, making faces and generally falling over one another trying to spew out the statement du jour that will guarantee their name/ organization/ opinion will be a part of today's news cycle for as long as they can possibly get it to stay there. They offer rank conjecture, opinion and hyperbole,  much of which they may not even believe,  but they're being paid to offer it. After this cluster#### is concluded,  the anchor makes an exasperated noise or expression and segues into a commercial. 

One or two of these talking heads saying something ridiculous like "Trump will be led away from the oval office by Capitol police any day now" now becomes "this news network believes that Trump will be arrested tomorrow." Then the next set of talking heads, either on rival networks or talk radio or websites kowtowing to whichever ideology that pays their bills whips the whole thing into a tsunami of (mis)interpretation, misinformation,  opinion and hyperbolic,  broad-brushed statements about how crazy the "media" is.

The actual journalists did their jobs. They reported the facts as they understood them. Then the network did what the network does: whipped up controversy to increase ratings and revenue. 

Moral of the story: cable news is not news, unless it is of the breaking variety, such as in a disaster. If you want real, nuanced news, read it- don't watch it.
:goodposting:

 
You're referring to the Scaramucci story? CNN fired those journalists but arguably they should not have. It later proved to be true. In fact the connection that CNN reported on ended up in the Mueller report, that between Scaramucci and Dmitriev. 

NYT

- Dimitriev of course later texted Peskov after the election that "Putin has won." (Mueller report).

That story alone is so complex it would take us all Sunday to go through and I'm sure we don't want to do that. But it just goes to show the incredibly complex job journlists have had in this scandal.
CNN displayed incredible levels of journalistic integrity regarding a true story which just failed to meet their high standards......and yet all Trump supporters can do is point to it as an example of what's wrong with journalism. It's so backwards.

 
CNN displayed incredible levels of journalistic integrity regarding a true story which just failed to meet their high standards......and yet all Trump supporters can do is point to it as an example of what's wrong with journalism. It's so backwards.
I have posted several links about media bias regrading Russia and Trump. 

 
Earlier you had asked me to provide some links to support a claim I made. I did and would appreciate the same so we could discuss. Thanks.
Yes...to support claims you made of what people have actually said.  Do you really need a link to his umbrella incident that has been posted and discussed?  Covfefe?  His many many lies?  This seems to be an attempt at a gotcha for some reason.  I will oblige though...as Ive said...always happy to back up the things I have said.

Covfefe...and how instead of owning it he just tries to play it off.  Someone recently posted a video clip of him doing this during speeches too when he says something incorrect on the prompter and tries to act as if he meant to do that rather than ever admitting a mistake.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/31/covfefe-one-year-anniverary-donald-trumps-confusing-tweet/659414002/

Umbrella...though, that one was more of a joke and its just funny.

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

Compulsive liar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae8705121ed4

Briefings with pictures...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-latest-pictures-intelligence-briefings-new-report-a7763831.html

There are also many articles out there talking about his mental state...

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/21/why-wont-the-media-discuss-trumps-mental-instability/

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/25/donald-trump-applied-psychoanalysis-diagnosis/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/201709/the-dangerous-case-donald-trump

You may not agree...but there is plenty of evidence to question his mental fitness.

 
CNN displayed incredible levels of journalistic integrity regarding a true story which just failed to meet their high standards......and yet all Trump supporters can do is point to it as an example of what's wrong with journalism. It's so backwards.
And claim they were fired for fake news...and do so not understanding the irony of claiming that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes...to support claims you made of what people have actually said.  Do you really need a link to his umbrella incident that has been posted and discussed?  Covfefe?  His many many lies?  This seems to be an attempt at a gotcha for some reason.  I will oblige though...as Ive said...always happy to back up the things I have said.

Covfefe...and how instead of owning it he just tries to play it off.  Someone recently posted a video clip of him doing this during speeches too when he says something incorrect on the prompter and tries to act as if he meant to do that rather than ever admitting a mistake.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/05/31/covfefe-one-year-anniverary-donald-trumps-confusing-tweet/659414002/

Umbrella...though, that one was more of a joke and its just funny.

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

Compulsive liar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ae8705121ed4

Briefings with pictures...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-latest-pictures-intelligence-briefings-new-report-a7763831.html

There are also many articles out there talking about his mental state...

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/21/why-wont-the-media-discuss-trumps-mental-instability/

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/25/donald-trump-applied-psychoanalysis-diagnosis/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/201709/the-dangerous-case-donald-trump

You may not agree...but there is plenty of evidence to question his mental fitness.
Thank you. I will not defend his tweets. I think much of what he tweets is calculated, often, at a minimum playing loose with the truth, and sometimes lying. While the physiological analyses are an interesting read, I see them as having limited value. A real clinical evaluation requires far more than dissecting communications.

Trump is petulant, self-absorbed, and immature. While these are characteristics that I do not like, I would not say they rise to the level of being unfit for office.

 
Thank you. I will not defend his tweets. I think much of what he tweets is calculated, often, at a minimum playing loose with the truth, and sometimes lying. While the physiological analyses are an interesting read, I see them as having limited value. A real clinical evaluation requires far more than dissecting communications.

Trump is petulant, self-absorbed, and immature. While these are characteristics that I do not like, I would not say they rise to the level of being unfit for office.
Fair enough...I disagree. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top